LIMITATION OF LIABILITY – DEFINITION OF CHARTERER – DEFINITION OF SHIPOWNER – SLOT CHARTERER – CONTAINERIZED CARGO – VESSEL AND CARGO CASUALTY/LOSS

Killiney Shipping and Sea Consortium (the Charterers) entered into a Bareboat and a Time Charter, respectively with EOS RO (the Owners). Multiple contract agreements existed between the Parties. When a vessel laden with cargo under these multiple contracts caught fire, a limitation ruling was publicized, resulting in subsequent claims. In question was who was considered the charterer and who the shipowner with regard to the losses and liability.

SALE OF CARGO – EFFECT OF LIEN – ARBITRATION ACT OF 1996 – PARADIGM CASE – CHARTERER OWNED CARGO – RECEIVER AS OWNERS’ AGENT – FAILURE TO RECEIVE BILL OF LADING

Lord Marine (the Owners) and their vessel, Lord Hassan, entered into a voyage charterparty with Vimeksim (the Charterers) on or before April 12, 2024. By May 18, 11,000 mt of cargo had been loaded at Chornomorsk. Lord Marine issued the bill of lading on a standard Congenform 1994 form, which went on to name AAK, the consignee, as the “Receivers”, despite neither them, nor the Charterers ever receiving it. In error, the freight was categorized as “Prepaid”, despite not being paid at that time, or at all.

DEMURRAGE – ADVERSE WEATHER DELAY – BILLS OF LADING DELAY – CARGO LOAD DISCREPANCY – ANVOY FORM – SYNACOMEX 90 FORM – PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATE – DESPATCH – WEEKENDS EXCLUDED FROM LAYTIME – TIME EXCLUDED CLAUSE – DOCUMENTS ALLOWANCE – CUSTOMS CLEARANCE DELAY – DELAYS DURING WEEKENDS
The vessel was chartered for a single voyage transporting wheat between Russia and Brazil. Owners claimed demurrage of US$48,093.75 for time spent awaiting customs clearance over the weekend. Charterers denied liability, claiming this time was exempt from laytime, and filed a counterclaim of US$40,208.33.

TIME CHARTER – AMENDED NYPE FORM – UNDERPERFORMANCE – LSMGO DISCREPANCY – ROB FUEL DISCREPANCY – OFF-HIRE VS UNPAID HIRE – CRANE FAILURE – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION METHODOLOGY – WEATHER ROUTING COMPANY REPORTS

A vessel was time chartered under an amended NYPE 1993 form for the transport of paddy rice from Rio Grande to Veracruz. A dispute arose regarding the final hire accounts. Owners claimed US$11,854.31 for unpaid hire. Charterers denied liability, arguing deductions made to the claim were valid, citing underperformance, off-hire for crane failure, and a discrepancy in the LSMGO figures.

VOYAGE CANCELLATION – TERMINATION OF CHARTER – BREACH OF CONTRACT– IMPLIED OBLIGATION OF GOOD FAITH – DAMAGES AND MITIGATION – OBTAINING SUBSTITUTE FIXTURE AFTER CANCELLATION – AMENDED GENCON FORM – MISSED CANCELLING DATE – SHIPPER’S CANCELLATION OF VOYAGE – WHETHER CARGO WAS SPECIFIC TO SHIPPERS OR AN AGREED OBLIGATION
A vessel chartered under an amended GENCON form was to transport scrap metal from Venezuela to Turkey. No loading occurred, and the charter was canceled. The dispute centered on Owners’ claim for damages due to the fixture’s cancellation and Charterers’ counter that Owners did not act in good faith to secure substitute employment.

APPEAL – US SANCTIONS – CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT – FORCE MAJEURE AFFECTING DELAY IN LOADING AND DISCHARGE – REASONABLE ENDEAVORS – DOLLAR PAYMENTS REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT – OFFER TO PAY IN EUROS – OVERCOMING SANCTIONS

MUR Shipping sought to overturn a previous decision by the Court of Appeal by focusing on a force majeure clause in their contract with RTI. MUR invoked force majeure due to US sanctions preventing payments in dollars. The appeal examined contractual clarity, contractual rights, and the application of force majeure clauses.

TIME CHARTER – NYPE 93 FORM – FAILURE TO TENDER NOR FOR FIVE DAYS – DELAY TO TENDER NOR – LIABILITY OF OWNERS FOR DEMURRAGE NOT EARNED UNDER SUB-CHARTER – CLAUSE 8 – NEGLIGENCE OF AGENTS – DEMURRAGE

On a voyage chartered under an amended NYPE 93 form, a dispute arose due to the master’s delayed submission of the Notice of Readiness (NOR), leading sub-charterers to contest the commencement of demurrage. Owners contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor negligent, attributing any loss to negligence on the part of the Charterers’ agents. Charterers argued that the master’s failure constituted a breach of contract and negligence.