2026 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
NYPE — TIME CHARTER TRIP — SPEED AND BUNKER CONSUMPTION — ONGOING PERFORMANCE WARRANTY — Partial Charterer Award
At issue is whether the seaworthiness of the Vessel as warranted in clause 1 “for the service and all time during the currency of this Charter” applies to the speed and consumption warranty as a continuing warranty throughout the duration of the charter (not just at the time of delivery).
ASBATANKVOY — AMBIGUITY OF OWNER NAMED IN CHARTER PARTY — CONTRACT REFORMATION — DEMURRAGE — Partial Owner Award
This partial final award addresses the claimant’s right to assert a demurrage claim against Charterer, when the claimant is not expressly named as the Owner in the fixture recap. Star Tankers, as disponent Owner, filed a demurrage claim with Charterer which was rejected on the basis that the charter party names the Owner as Scerni Di Navigazion.
GROUNDING — PERIL OF SEAS OR NEGLIGENCE OF CREW — MARINE INSURANCE — MEASURE OF DAMAGES — Owner Award
The Vessel grounded while she was at anchorage awaiting berth and the insurance underwriters refused to compensate the Owner. The underwriters argued that the Owner had not proven how the grounding occurred. In ruling for the Owner, the Panel held that whether the grounding was due to peril of the seas or negligence of the crew, either was sufficient for insurance compensation.
SUGAR CHARTER PARTY 1999 — FIRE DAMAGE AT TERMINAL — MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN DEFINED — OBLIGATION TO NOMINATE ALTERNATE BERTH — FORCE MAJEURE — GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE — Owner Award
The Vessel was delayed in berthing due to a fire that had destroyed the conveyor belt system at the Charterer’s regularly-scheduled terminal. Charterer submitted their case to the Court of Appeal for consideration that this situation should constitute a mechanical breakdown and likewise exempted from the Owner’s laytime calculation.
GENCON — FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO — BEST EFFORTS — DAMAGES — Owner Award
After the Vessel’s arrival at the loadport, the Charterer’s representative notified the Disponent Owner that they were unable to provide a cargo for the Vessel and had to cancel the charter party. The Disponent Owner brought arbitration proceedings against the Charterer to recover costs associated with their breach.
NYPE 1946 — TIME CHARTER — OFF-HIRE CLAUSE MEANING OF “LOSS OF TIME” — Owner Award
Charterer was liable to pay for the off-hire period while drifting off the discharge port as there was no net loss of time as the discharge berth was unavailable.
BPVOY 3 — VESSEL DETAINED — RESTRAINT OF PRINCES — DEMURRAGE LIABILITY — FORCE MAJEURE — FOB Buyer Award
In overturning the lower Court ruling, the Court of Appeal held that parties may not be able to rely on Force Majeure clauses where the event is within their reasonable control or that of the parties whom they had delegated their responsibilities.
CARGO LIEN — RIGHT TO RECOVER STORAGE COSTS — GENERAL AVERAGE — CONGEN BILLS OF LADING — Owner Award
Owner exercised his right of lien on the cargo while awaiting the Charterer’s General Average payment due to the Vessel’s main engine breakdown en route to the discharge port. At issue is whether the lien was waived when an average guarantee (rather than an average bond) was given by the consignee; and, whether the Owner could claim the expense of storage costs when exercising the lien.
TIME CHARTER — ENFORCEABILITY OF ENGLISH ARBITRATION IN CONTRACT CONTAINING AN ILLEGAL GUARANTEE — NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CHINESE “SAFE” (STATE ADMINISTRATION FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE) REGISTRATION — Owner Award
The background to this case involved five claims pursued by various ship owners against Beijing Jianlong Heavy Industry Group (hereinafter “Charterer”) against the Charterer’s guarantor to resolve essentially the same issue i.e. Charterer’s repudiation of its obligations under several time charter contracts. Due to the similarities, the dispute was consolidated at London arbitration.
TIME CHARTER — GROUNDING DUE EXCESS DRAFT RESULTING FROM SUB-CHARTERER’S LOAD INSTRUCTIONS — Charterer Award
Under a chain of time charters, the Vessel grounded and damaged her hull as a result of following the sub-Charterer’s load instructions to a draft of 13.3m. The Head Owner’s claim for indemnity failed because the sub-Charterer’s indemnity guarantee was given to the Master as the representative of the intermediate Charterer (not as a representative of the Head Owner) and the indemnity was not provided on a back-to-back basis throughout the chain.
