2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
BPVOY3 – FREIGHT RATE CALCULATION DISAGREEMENT – WHETHER RATE IS TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON COMPLETE VOYAGE – Owner Award
A charterparty was negotiated for a voyage from a predetermined load port to one or two discharge ports with an addendum regarding the freight rate calculation. A disagreement ensued over the wording of addendum to how freight should be calculated; namely, whether the rate should be determined by taking into account the voyage in its entirety.
TIME CHARTER - CHARTERER’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE OR REFUND BUNKERS UPON REDELIVERY - WHETHER OWNER OBLIGATED TO MITIGATE LOSS - Owner Award
A vessel was time chartered with the provision that Charterer would supply bunkers before redelivery. When Charterer was unable to pay for bunkers upon redelivery and further failed to reimburse Owner for when Owner arranged and paid for the bunkers, Owner commenced arbitration. In turn, Charterer claimed Owner failed to mitigate losses when Owner allegedly wasted 2 days arranging the bunkers.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT – CONSIGNEE’S LIABILITY TO CARRIER FOR DEMURRAGE/DETENTION AS SIGNER OF BILLS OF LADING – NOTIFY PARTY – ENDORSEMENT – BREACH OF CONTRACT – UNJUST ENRICHMENT – ACCOUNT STATED – Plaintiff Award The consignee failed to unload cargo from the vessel as the third party buyer was no longer in business. The cargo remained on the vessel as demurrage and detention fees accumulated. This action was brought before the court by carrier in an attempt to recover those damages from consignee basis a breach of contract by consignee, an account stated, and unjust enrichment. [dropcap]T[/dropcap]his dispute arose at the...
FOB SALE - VALIDITY OF SUBSTITUTE VESSEL’S NOMINATION - PRE-ADVICE AND NOMINATION PROVISIONS - WHETHER BUYER IN REPUDIATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT - Seller Award
Buyer nominated a substitute vessel one day before the original vessel was to arrive and load her cargo. Seller rejected both vessel nominations and cancelled the contract basis Buyer’s repudiatory breach of the provisions laid out in the contract. A GAFTA tribunal ruled one way, a board in another, whilst in this instance the the High Court supported the GAFTA tribunal.
CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT - CHARTERER’S FAILURE TO NOMINATE CARGOES - OWNER A DISPONENT OWNER - ASSESSMENT OF OWNER’S LOSS - Owner Award
A three year contract of affreightment was fixed to ship bulk commodities between 2009-2011. The global financial crisis caused Charterer to breach the COA by not nominating cargoes. Arbitrators would find that Owner had suffered no loss due to their utilization of third party companies to receive inward freight from the COA as well as pay outward freight to head owner. This decision was appealed by Owner with the intention being to prove Owner’s entitlement to $3 million in lost freight due to charterer’s breach.
DISCHARGE ALLOCATION - SHORT LOADED CARGO - DRAFT SURVEYS - OWNER ACTING WITHOUT CONSENT OF CHARTERER - DETENTION - DEMURRAGE
The cargo was loaded aboard the vessel according to Charterer’s orders and in line with the initial discharge allocation. However, the shore reading and multiple draft surveys indicated a loading figure 265 MT less than the aggregate B/L figures. After sailing the load port Charterer amended the discharge port rotation as well as the discharge allocation of the cargo onboard. And after completion of operations at the first discharge port Charterer’s receiver complained that the quantity received was short ~200MT and threatened legal action if the remainder was not provided. The vessel eventually obliged and sailed for her second discharge port wherein the same situation arose. The panel majority found the Owner’s actions to be acceptable with the third arbitrator dissenting.
On 28 June 2017 the Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeal and reinstated the Comm. Court’s ruling. I.e. After repudiating the charter party, charterer is not entitled to a credit for the difference in diminished value between when the vessel was sold in 2007 versus had it been sold in 2009 when it was to have been redelivered. NYPE – TIME CHARTER – ANTICIPATORY BREACH – EARLY REDELIVERY – WHETHER A MARKET AVAILABLE IN WHICH TO MITIGATE LOSS – CAUSATION – Charterer Award While under a time charter the vessel was redelivered two years early. An arbitrator found in favor of...
HURRICANE SANDY – WHETHER HURRICANE AN ACT OF GOD – WHETHER HURRICANE DAMAGE FORESEEABLE – Defendant Award
A disagreement arose between two companies when cargo was damaged by Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge. The claimant hoped to recover damages for the lost cargo. The defendant refused, citing that the storm was an Act of God and that the damage was not foreseeable.
Tendering a valid NOR for Oiltanking Texas City just got a little harder to do thanks to a recent change of policy for the 555,000 cbm storage facility. On Wednesday, 13-Jan-2016 an Oiltanking representative released a new “Oiltanking Texas City’s ‘NOR’ Acceptance Procedure” that is in direct opposition to the current NOR tender policy for the Houston / Texas City area.
