2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

TBS Latin America Liner, Ltd. v. CI Corporacion Carbones De La Sabansa SA (The “Ainu Princess”) – SMA No. 4017, 28 Nov 2008

GENCON -- NO RESPONSE TO DEMURRAGE CLAIM OR ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS -- RULES OF ARBITRATION -- Owner Award The Panel makes several attempts to contact the Charterer for participation in the proceedings, but received no response whatsoever. The Panel examines the demurrage claim at the heart of the award.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Jo Tankers BV v. Empresa Maritima Americana, Ltd. (The “JO Hegg”) – SMA No. 4019, 19 Dec 2008

ASBATANKVOY -- FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO -- CONFIDENTIALITY -- IMPROPER CANCELLATION -- Owner Award While the Vessel was in port awaiting cargo for another charterer, Owner was approached with the opportunity to load another cargo in the interim. The second fixture was quickly made, and Owner re-negotiated their laydays with the first charterer. The second charterer then promptly cancelled the fixture. Owner submitted a claim for lost profits, which the second charterer refuted due to the brevity of the fixture.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Trammochem v. dow Benelux N.V. and Atofina-Petrofina SA and AP Moeller and Igloo Shipping AS (The “LPG/C Igloo Norse”) – SMA No. 4021, 18 Dec 2007

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- PRIMA FACIE -- DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award On arrival at the discharge port, the cargo was found to be contaminated and the Receivers refused delivery. Charterer presented a prima facie claim showing that there was no apparent contamination in the cargo as it was delivered to the Vessel. The Panel sorted through a wealth of information to ascertain the source of cargo contamination, and explains the process of discovery.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Caytrans BBC, LLC v. Agrogen SA de CV (The “Faaborg”) – SMA No. 4025, 27 Feb 2009

GENCON -- NO RESPONSE TO DEMURRAGE CLAIM -- AWAIT CARGO DOCUMENTS -- SHIFT OFF BERTH -- BROKERAGE COMMISSION -- Owner Award Even though the Charterer doesn't repond to the arbitrator's request to participate in the arbitration, the arbitrator looks critically at Owner's demurrage claim and makes revisions to reduce the demurrage amount. A key question in this award is what time counts as used laytime when the Vessel shifts off the berth to await documents at the anchorage prior to departure.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

The Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v. FR8 Singapore Pte Ltd (The “Eternity”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 21 Oct 2008

BPVOY -- TIME BAR -- SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- INERT GAS SYSTEM -- ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION VS USE OF DUE DILIGENCE -- NEGLIGENCE -- Partial Charterer, Owner Award If the Vessel’s crew failed to secure the common Inert Gas line resulting in the contamination of Charterer’s two cargoes, is the Owner excused under Hague Visby Article IV rule 2(a) i.e. "an act, neglect or default of the master and/or servants of the carrier in the management of the vessel"? Regarding demurrage time bar requirements, if the governing clause stipulates that the Vessel’s pump log is to be counter-signed by the Terminal and said signature is not obtained, is this cause for barring the entire claim or just that one aspect of the claim? If the operative demurrage time bar clause requires the Vessel’s documents to be counter-signed by a “Terminal” representative and the cargo transfer takes place at anchorage in a ship-to-ship (STS) transfer, does the lack of the Terminal’s signature give cause to bar that aspect of the claim?
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Maritime Articles

UP CLOSE: ConocoPhillips 2009 Marine Provisions

ConocoPhillips recently issued Marine Provisions for incorporation in commercial sales contracts which became effective January 1, 2009, superseding the September 1, 2008 Marine Provisions and January 1, 2005 Marine Provisions. Whether the seller is the Terminal Party (the party taking delivery from, or making delivery to, a Vessel); or the Vessel Party (the party, in agreement responsible for, taking delivery on, or making delivery from, a Vessel), ConocoPhillips’ new marine provisions are intended to be equitable and are clear when defining the respective parties’ responsibilities and liabilities. This being said, there are a number of intricacies within the provisions. From the perspective of a demurrage analyst, we find the following to be some of the items of note.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Team Tankers AS v. Tricon Shipping Ltd. (The “Siteam Merkur”) – SMA No. 4016, 25 Nov 2008

ASBATANKVOY -- WITHHELD FREIGHT -- SECURITY -- CONDITION OF TANKS -- Partial Final Owner Award On arrival at the third loading port, the inspectors found the Vessel's remaining tanks unsuitable to load, calling the epoxy coating too badly deteriorated. The Vessel sailed to the discharge port without loading the balance cargo. The Charterer withheld freight, citing the Vessel's condition and the cost of acquiring alternate carriage for the unloaded cargo.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Mansel Oil Ltd. and Another v. Troon Storage Tankers SA (The “Ailsa Craig”) – EWHC 1269 (Comm. Ct.), 9 Jun 2008

SHELLTIME 4 -- TIME CHARTER -- VESSEL NOT DELIVERED BY CANCELLATION DATE -- DELIVERY PORT NOT NAMED -- RIGHT TO CANCEL -- FUTILITY -- Charterer Award Although the Vessel was due to be delivered to Nigeria to commence a time charterer contract, she was at drydock in Greece and missed the deadline for the delivery date. Charterer cancelled the charter, which Owner refuted, citing additional work which Charterer had ordered on the Vessel's tanks which made the deadline impossible to meet. Owner also argued that Charterer failed in their obligation to nominate a specific delivery port, which would have given Owners 30 days to make delivery.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

P v. A and Another – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 20 Jun 2008

AMERICANIZED WELSH COAL -- CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT -- LATE NOMINATION OF LAYDAYS -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- Owner Award On the 5th lifting under a contract of affreightment (COA) covering six voyages, the Charterer nominated the layday spread but was subsequently unable to secure a cargo, and asked Owner to move the laydays back two weeks. Due to a rising freight market, Owner was unwilling to do so, but offered to simply cancel voyage #5 and lift the cargo as the last voyage under the fixture. At issue is whether the laydays were irrevocable even though Owner had not yet nominated a Vessel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Mediterranean Salvage & Towing Ltd. v. Seamar Trading & Commerce Inc. (The “Reborn”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 1 Aug 2008

GENCON -- VESSEL DAMAGED WHILE BERTHING -- MULTIPLE BERTH CALLS IN PORT -- SAFE BERTH WARRANTY -- Charterer Award If a specific port is named in a voyage charterparty and there are several possible berths within that port to which a vessel could be directed and there is no express "safety" warranty of either the port or the berth, is the charterparty subject to an implied term that the Charterers must nominate a “safe” berth?
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.