2026 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
DISPONENT OWNER CLAIMING DAMAGES FROM SHIPPER – IDENTIFICATION OF CARRIER UNDER COGEN FORM BILL OF LADING – DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL- IMPLIED CONTRACTS
After loading a bulk cargo shipper ran into difficulties with its sales contract which the FOB buyer / charterer ultimately repudiated. At the request of the shipper the vessel was detained and waited at the load port until she eventually discharged the cargo on instruction from a local court. The disponent owner claimed damages from the shipper stating that under the bill of lading the disponent owner was the carrier. The shipper, i.e. seller under FOB terms, denied the basis of owner’s claims with the implication being that the shipper’s contract was not with the disponent owner and thus no arbitration clause existed between the disponent owner and shipper.
LOAN AGREEMENT – WITHOUT PREJUDICE RULE – CORRESPONDENCE – DOES RULE APPLY – Claimant award
When a Claimant requested correspondences to be admissible in evidence, Defendant objected given they were headed “Without Prejudice and Subject to Contract” and thus privileged.
PETITION TO CONFIRM AWARD – CONSECUTIVE VOYAGE CHARTER – VESSEL DRY DOCKED WITHOUT MUTUAL AGREEMENT – IN TURN CARGO NOT PROVIDED – MATERIAL & REPUDIATORY BREACH – Owner Award
Owner petitioned to confirm an earlier arbitration award in which the arbitrators held that the Charterer had breached the Charter by not providing cargo for the Vessel. Charterer argued that the arbitrators had acted with complete disregard of past precedent in assessing damages against them and filed a cross-motion to vacate the award.
VOYAGE CHARTER – BALTIC 99 INCORRECT IN REGARDS TO CRANE TYPE – REDUCED LOAD RATE – Owner Award
At the time of fixture, the type of crane listed on the Baltic 99 form was incorrect. Charterer claimed the decision to conduct the fixture was based on the listed crane and adjusted the load and discharge rate upon which the allowed laytime was calculated based on what they believed the actual crane could handle. Owner disagreed with this change and brought the case to arbitration.
SALES CONTRACT – CRUDE OIL – EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE – FULL TRADING NAME NOT LISTED IN CORRESPONDENCE – IS CONTRACT BINDING – Claimant Award
When buyer’s buyer rejected 630K bbls of crude oil as it was blended rather than being from a sole well, buyer maintained no binding contract existed between seller and buyer. Seller subsequently pressed for damages under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Sections 50(2) and (3) basis buyer’s unlawful repudiation. In addition to maintaining no binding contract existed, buyer in turn rejected the claim for damages under the auspices of Clause 32.1 of BP 2007 GT&Cs for CFR Sales.
INTEREST ON OUTSTANDING DEMURRAGE- REBILLING COUNTERPARTIES- DELAYED PAYMENTS
Outstanding demurrage claims were not paid to the owner due to economic hardship itself caused by non-payment by charterer’s suppliers. Charterer did not deny the validity of the claims yet objected to being charged interest as same was not allowed for within the charter parties.
ESTABLISHING MARKET VALUE – TORT OF CONVERSION – DAMAGES – SUPPLY CHAIN – Buyer Award
While the Vessel was en route to the discharge port, the Vessel was withdrawn from the Contract Carriers’ service when they defaulted on hire and the cargo of river sand onboard was sold to mitigate the Owners’ losses. However, the Buyer argued that this constituted a tort of conversion and filed for damages against the Contract Carriers and the Owners basis an alleged market price of the sand.
VESSEL DAMAGED BY STEVEDORES – WHETHER 24 HOURS NOTICE REQUIRED BY OWNER – COMPETING CLAUSES WITHIN FIXTURE – Owner Award
The vessel sustained damage during the loading and discharging of a cargo of logs Owner requested that the charterer pay for the repairs per 2 clauses included in the charter party. However, relying upon a 3rd clause Charterers believed owner was required to provide notice within 24 hours of the damage and thus refused to pay.
These charts represent freight rate trends (USD/M.T.) over a three-year period for 1,000 M.T. lots of easy liquid chemicals between Houston, Rotterdam, Mediterranean, Brazil, Latin America, Asia Pacific and Kandla. Data provided by New England Tanker Chartering, Inc. (NETCO).
ASBATANKVOY – PARTIAL FINAL AWARD – PARTIAL DEMURRAGE COLLECTION — DELAYS AT OTHER PORTS EXTENDING FROM COLLISION AND REPAIRS – Owner Award
Due to a collision in port Owner was required to repair the Vessel. Because of the delay the Owners contended that they should receive partial demurrage payment for the period after the collision. Charterer believed that a full hearing covering the entire voyage should be concluded before judgement can be passed on the demurrage from any single part of the voyage.
