2022 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Ardmore MR Pool LLC (Ardmore Shipping) v Orient Source (HK) Ltd. (The “Ardmore Sealancer”) – SMA No. 4372, 22 Jul 2019

ASBATANKVOY – NAMED PORT – NAMED BERTH – Q88 – FOREIGN FLAG RESTRICTION – INVALID NOR – CARGO AVAILABILITY – DEADFREIGHT – DEMURRAGE – ADDRESS COMMISSION

When Charterer was either unable to provide a cargo or Vessel was not allowed admittance to the load port due to its flag, Owner cancelled the charter party and claimed for deadfreight and demurrage. It was also noted that the Vessel may have tendered a premature NOR from just outside the load port.

MUR Shipping BV v Cathagrow International Ltd. (The “African Jay”) – SMA No. 4371, 15 Jul 2019

BEIZAI 1991 – EQUIPMENT FAILURE – UNION SAFETY INSPECTION FAILURE – DEMURRAGE – DAMAGES

When the crane sheaves on the vessel failed the longshoremen’s inspection, time was lost when attempting to resolve the issue with the Owner ultimately choosing to have the sheaves machined.  Owner claimed demurrage and the cost of the machining from Charterer.

London Arbitration 22/19

CHARTERPARTY – ADDITIONAL FREIGHT – DEMURRAGE – LAYTIME – PREMATURE – NOTICE OF READINESS – DELAYS IN CARGO OPERATIONS – SLOW DISCHARGE – “ONCE ON DEMURRAGE, ALWAYS ON DEMURRAGE”

The discharge port for a ship carrying logs was changed after a mutual agreement between the shipowner and charterers. Charges were filed against the charterer for lost time which charterer partially contested basis an alleged premature NOR. The court that oversaw this case awarded the shipowner financial compensation based off of a reduced time that the court saw as fair.

Cargill Incorporated, Ocean Transportation v. Triorient LLC (The “Josco Huizhou”) – SMA No. 4416, 11 Nov 2020

OWNER/CHARTERER – POTENTIAL FORCE MAJEURE – CARGO NOT SUPPLIED – OWNER TERMINATED CHARTER – OWNER CLAIMED BREACH AND REPUDIATION – OWNER AWARD

After awaiting Charterer’s cargo for ~2+ months and not receiving a satisfactory answer as to when it would be provided, Owner terminated the Charter, claiming that the Charterer was in breach and repudiation of the agreement. The Owner then brought a case to arbitration, once the Charterer did not respond to the claims that were submitted to them regarding the incident.

London Arbitration 3/20

NYPE FORM – INTER-CLUB NYPE AGREEMENT (ICA) – CARGO CLAIM – TIME BAR

The tribunal was left to decide if proper notification of an impending cargo claim had been made to meet the requirements of the time bar clause.

Star Tankers, Inc. v Citgo Petroleum Corporation (The “DS Promoter”) – SMA No. 4399, 7 Aug 2020

OWNER/CHARTERER – DEMURRAGE – U.S. SANCTIONS AGAINST VENEZUELA – PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR OFAC LICENSE – OWNER AWARD

Owner submitted four undisputed invoices to the charterer, regarding a voyage from the U.S. to Venezuela. The Charterer refused to attempt payment of the invoices, contending that an OFAC License may be needed in order to allow the transfer of funds due to sanctions against Venezuela. Arbitrators were asked to determine if an OFAC License was needed, and if so, which party was responsible for acquiring the Licence.

London Arbitration 1/21

TIME BAR - WHETHER OWNERS PROVIDED CONTRACTUAL DOCUMENTS - SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS - SIGNED DOCUMENTS - EQUIVALENT DOCUMENTS Charterer argued Owner’s demurrage claim was time-barred for lack of containing the contractually required documents.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 27/19

NYPE - DEDUCTION FROM HIRE - SHORE CRANE CHARGES - SPEED - CONSUMPTION After Charterers had deducted hire based on shore crane charges as well as claimed underperformance and overconsumption from a chartered vessel, the Tribunal was left to determine if these charges were reasonable or if the shipowner’s evidence would disprove these actions.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 26/19

CHARTER PARTY - SPEED AND CONSUMPTION CLAIM - WHETHER CHARTERER ENTITLED TO MAKE DEDUCTION FROM HIRE - WHETHER VESSEL UNDER PERFORMED After Charterer filed a claim against shipowner for speed and over consumption as well as deduction of hire based on a report made by an independent weather bureau, the Tribunal was left to determine if the claim was unreasonable or if the shipowner had failed to make correct claims about the performance of their vessel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.