2026 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
COMMENCEMENT OF LAYTIME – WHETHER SHINC TERM TRUMPS OFFICE HOURS – DESPATCH
After NOR was tendered and loading commenced on a Sunday, the Owner and Charterer disputed when laytime commenced. Owner noted the laytime allowance referenced “shinc” allowing for laytime to commence on Sunday whereas charterer noted NOR was only to be tendered Monday through Friday.
EXTENSIVE DELAY PURSUING CLAIM IN ARBITRATION – WHETHER DELAY INORDINATE AND INEXCUSABLE – WHETHER SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS ONGOING DURING DELAY – WHETHER NEGOTIATIONS CONSTITUTED A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
Respondent requested an arbitration claim be withdrawn citing an inordinate and inexcusable delay in moving forward with proceedings. The claimant countered that the delay was due to both parties agreeing to stay proceedings whilst working towards a settlement.
ASBATANKVOY – PORT CHARTER VERSUS BERTH CHARTER – DELIVERED SALE
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...
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.
