2022 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

London Arbitration 21/21

ASBATANKVOY - FRUSTRATION – VOLGA-DON SHIPPING CANAL (VDSC) – WINTER CLOSURE – ADDITIONAL FREIGHT - DEVIATION – INTERIM PORT CLAUSE – ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE CLAUSE – DEADFREIGHT – DEMURRAGE - DELAY A sea-river vessel was chartered on an amended Asbatankvoy to transport fuel oil. The vessel was to sail from Turkmenbashi, Turkmenistan, to OPL Kavkaz, Russia, via the Volga-Don Shipping Canal (the VDSC). The VDSC accelerated its official closing for the season, and the vessel was refused “commercial” entrance. The charter was frustrated, and the vessel was forced to retrace its route back to the Caspian Sea. Owners claimed additional freight, deadfreight, deviation, quantum meruit demurrage, and damages for detention.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, SA. de C.V. v Alia Global Logistics, S.A. de C.V. (M/T “King Gregory”)  – SMA 4429, 1 November 2021

ASBATANKVOY – TERMINATION OF CHARTER – DAMAGES – NON-PAYMENT – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO Owner claimed Charterer failed to present a cargo to be loaded onto the vessel. Owner and Charterer agreed to cancel the charter; however, Owner claimed damages because of the cancellation. Charterer agreed to pay damages but did not remit payment.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

K-Line Pte Ltd v Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd (The “Eternal Bliss”) – Court of Appeal (Sir Geoffrey Vos, MR, Newey and Males LJJ) [2021] EWCA Civ 1712 – 18 November 2021

NORGRAIN - DEMURRAGE - DAMAGES - LIQUIDATED DAMAGES- APPEAL – IMPLIED INDEMNITY - LAYTIME The Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court's decision in K-Line Pte Limited v Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Limited (the "ETERNAL BLISS") [2021] EWCA Civ 1712, which acknowledged the long-standing question of whether a shipowner can recover damages in addition to demurrage when a charterer's only breach is failure to load/discharge the ship within the contractually agreed time. Please note this is a successful appeal of an award already recapped. Search in TANKVOYager via "Eternal Bliss" for the original award. K-Line Pte Ltd v Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd (The "Eternal Bliss") – QBD (Comm Ct) (Andrew Baker J)[2020] EWHC 2373 (Comm) – 7 September 2020
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Tricon Dry Chemicals LLC v Global Petro Converge – SMA 4391, 17 Jul 2020

PURCHASE CONTRACTS – FORCE MAJEURE – TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE CLAUSE – LOSS OF PROFITS – CALCULATION OF DAMAGES
When Respondent failed to ship purchased cargoes in a timely manner, Claimant charged the Respondent failed to perform its obligations under two separate purchase contracts and sought damages, interest, legal, and arbitration fees. Respondent claimed force majeure for changes in Saudi Arabian export laws and delays due to the holy month of Ramadan and Eid holiday.

PCL (Shipping) Pte. Ltd., v Triorient LLC, (The M/V “Glorious Sawara”) – SMA 4401, 16 Sep 2020

FORCE MAJEURE – DEMURRAGE – DISPONENT OWNER – LOSS OF EARNINGS
After 46 days at load port awaiting cargo, the Claimant terminated the contract claiming breach of charterparty. The Respondent claimed force majeure due to supplier issues. Claimant sought damages plus fees, costs and interest.

Seacape Shipping and Trading, LLC v Metalex 2000 S.A. (The “MV Livadi”) – SMA 4390, 15 Jul 2020

MEDITERRANEAN IRON ORE VOYAGE CHARTER – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO – DAMAGES – CALCULATION OF DAMAGES – DEMURRAGE – FORCE MAJEURE – GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE
Seacape Shipping and Trading (Claimant) alleged Metalex 2000 (Respondent) breached the voyage charter for failing to provide cargo and subsequently claimed for damages and demurrage. The Respondent claimed government interference and force majeure but participated only minimally in the arbitration.

London Arbitration 15/21

DEMURRAGE – BERTH OPERATOR RULES (UBT) – COMMENCE OF LAYTIME – DESPATCH
Owner claimed demurrage was due to delays at the Davant, Mississippi, loading port and cited the charterparty. Charterer countered Owner owed despatch and that UBT Rules as incorporated into the fixture superseded the charterparty.

London Arbitration 3/21

SYNACOMEX 2000 – DEMURRAGE – LOW WATER – DELAYED BARGES – FORCE MAJEURE – LACK OF WAREHOUSE SPACE – STEVEDORE DELAYS – TIME BAR – DEVIATION COSTS – REJECTED CARGO – BUNKERS CONSUMED BETWEEN PORTS
A vessel chartered to carry a cargo of corn was fixed on an amended Synacomex 2000 form dated 18 September 2016 and hired to deliver to a single port, to be nominated. Lack of water delayed barges, lack of warehouse space delayed discharge as did alleged issues with stevedores and cargo rejection. The latter 3 issues led to the vessel sailing to three discharge ports. The owner claimed demurrage and deviation costs.

Prax Petroleum Ltd. and Harvest Energy Ltd., v. Tricon Energy Ltd, (The “Stena Conquest” & “Silver Gwen”) – SMA 4417, 8 Feb 2021

SALES CONTRACT – DEMURRAGE – PUBLIC DOCK CLAUSE – COMMENCEMENT OF LAYTIME
Two vessels encountered delays whilst awaiting berth, resulting in delivered Seller claiming demurrage. Relying upon a public dock clause in the marine provisions, Buyer insisted time waiting for berths did not count and that rather time only starts after the vessels’ gangways were secured. Owner claimed contract confirmations, which included a laytime commencing clause, superseded Marine Provisions, and that laytime began after the tender of NOR

Brujo Finance Company v Sea Energy Company (MT “Alkimos”) v ES Euro shipping AG (MT “Alkimos”) – SMA 4388, 3 Jul 2020

ASBATANKVOY – KOLMAR TERMS – VIOLATION OF US SANCTIONS – SANCTIONS CLAUSE – STS TRANSFER – ALTERNATIVE ORDERS – PARTIAL FINAL AWARD – SUBJECT MOTION – DISCERNABLE RISK – VENEZUELA
The consolidated arbitration between the Owner and Respondents centered on whether the owner validly invoked the Charter’s Sanctions Clause when demanding alternative orders (Subject Motion). The owner claimed a discernable risk that the ship-to-ship transfer of cargo could have violated US Sanctions against Venezuela. This partial final award is issued solely in response to the Subject Motion and does not address any other disputes between the Owner and Respondents.