2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
SHELLTIME 4 – VESSEL DETAINED FOR INVALID AUTHORIZATION FORM – OFF HIRE – OWNER DISAGREES CITING CONTRACT TERMS – Owner Award
Whilst in a Venezuelan port the vessel was detained after an invalid authorization form was discovered by the Port Authorities. The charterer claimed the vessel was off-hire during the detention. The owner disagreed and commenced arbitration.
PORT VS. BERTH CHARTER - RIVER PORT - WHEN VESSEL CONSIDERED ARRIVED - COAST GUARD RESTRICTING TRAFFIC - COLLISION - DEMURRAGE - LAYTIME
Upon arrival in Argentina the vessel could not proceed to charterer’s port due to wreckage salvage operations taking place on the Paraná River. Owner started counting laytime basis a notice of readiness tendered outside the commercial confines of charterer’s port; the sole disport named in the fixture. Contending that the charter party was a berth charter, Charterer disputed the time at which the vessel was to be considered an arrived ship.
ASBATANKVOY - ADVERSE WEATHER OR NIGHTTIME TRANSIT RESTRICTION – DEMURRAGE CLAIM SHORT PAID WITHOUT OWNER’S AGREEMENT - Owner Award
Charterer and owner disagreed as to whether the root cause of a delay was a nighttime transit restriction or weather related subsequently warranting a 100% or 50% deduction respectfully. Charterer ended up short paying the owner’s claim and considering the case closed. The owner brought arbitration for the remainder.
TIME CHARTER – OWNER CLAIMING BALANCE OF HIRE – CHARTERER WITHHOLDING HIRE BASIS OFF-HIRE AND EQUITABLE SET-OFF – DATE OF ACCRUAL OF OWNER’S CLAIMS – WHETHER OWNER’S CLAIMS TIME-BARRED UNDER LIMITATION ACT Near the end of a time charter hire payments were withheld by Charterer to offset various claims against Owner. Just shy of 6 years after redelivery, arbitration was commenced against Charterer who contended the claim should be time-barred basis the date of accrual for each missed hire payment. The issues in dispute arose under a time charter of the NYPE form. Clause 5, in relevant part below, provided:...
As of 21 March 2016, BP Shipping Ltd. has released BPVOY5; the long-awaited successor to the 1998 BPVOY4 charter party. There have been quite a few changes made to the 18-year-old boilerplate. Most of these changes, however, are essentially updates to outdated language and none seem to be especially onerous. Here are a few that stuck out to us (both inside demurrage and out).
ARBITRATION – COUNTERCLAIM SUBMITTED AS DEFENSE DURING ARBITRATION – QUESTION AS TO WHETHER COUNTERCLAIM TIME BARRED – Charterer Award
Four contracts were negotiated between two parties regarding the charter of floating cranes. Later, the owner brought an arbitration case in an attempt to recover detention. With its defense at the arbitration, the charterer counterclaimed for demurrage. The arbitration panel found that the charterer’s counterclaim was time-barred. The charterer appealed.
COA – CARGO CONFISCATED BY GOVERNMENT - WHETHER DEMURRAGE IS OWED BY CHARTERER – WHETHER CHARTERER ENTITLED TO LAYTIME – Owner Award
A COA was negotiated for eight shipments of nickel ore. During the second delivery, operations were stopped and the ship, inclusive of cargo loaded, was confiscated due to suspicions that the cargo was illegally mined. After release of the Vessel a couple months later and then the completion of the operation, a few months after the release, the owner claimed that the charterer was liable for demurrage and was not to receive allowed laytime given charterer had failed to load a cargo. The charter rejected this contention and the owner brought the case to arbitration.
TIME CHARTER – WHETHER CHARTERER CAN ORDER VESSEL TO CONDUCT ADDITIONAL VOYAGE AFTER FIRST VOYAGE – Charterer Award
A time charter was negotiated regarding a voyage that allowed for multiple load and discharge ports. During discharge at the final port, the charterer ordered the vessel to begin an additional voyage. The owner rejected the assertion that the charterer was within their rights under the charterparty to conduct additional operations. An arbitration panel ruled in favor of the charterer with the owner subsequently appealing to the High Court.
MASTER’S VS AGENT’S SOF - BURDEN OF PROOF - RAIN PERIODS - CRANE BREAKDOWNS - OFFICIAL HOLIDAYS NOT TO COUNT - Owner Award
The agent’s statement of facts (SOF) included periods of rain which were not included in the Master’s SOF. The burden of proof lay on the charterer to prove any laytime exception. Also at controversy is how to properly prorate time when the vessel was under utilizing her available hatches and cranes as well as which holidays to consider as non-working days.
BUNKER SUPPLY CONTRACT – INCORRECT SULPHUR CONTENT PROVIDED – VESSEL DETOURED TO ACQUIRE PROPER FUEL – WHETHER BUNKER SUPPLIER RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES – UCC VERSUS U.S. MARITIME LAW - WORKMANLIKE WARRANTY - Owner Award
The owner negotiated a contract for low sulphur fuel oil to be loaded at an agreed upon location. However the incorrect bunker fuel was supplied, preventing the vessel from traveling to a port on the voyage route. An alternate location was then chosen and the appropriate fuel was loaded. After the operation was conducted, the owners submitted a claim for damages against the bunker supplier.
