2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Eagle Bulk PTE. LTD. v. Salt Source, LLC, (M/V “Gladiator”) – SMA No. 4448, 29 July 2022

FORCE MAJEURE – ANTICIPATORY BREACH – COVID 19 – HURRICANE DAMAGE – CARGO CONTAMINATION – REPUDIATORY BREACH – DEMURRAGE
The MV Gladiator was chartered under a Contract of Affreightment to transport salt from Brazil to Alabama from March-December 2020. The disponent owner, Eagle Bulk, disputed load port demurrage from the first lifting, unpaid freight charges, and losses for a breach of contract due to the charterer, Salt Source, failing to nominate a second cargo. Salt Source counterclaimed for damages to a portion of their cargo which they claimed had been contaminated during the voyage and claimed force majeure due to Covid-19 and Hurricane Sally for the cancellation of the remaining contracted voyages.

London Arbitration 12/22

BERTHING CHARGES – LAYTIME – DEMURRAGE – DAMAGES – AMENDED GENCON 94
Owner refused to let its vessel proceed to berth at the discharge port due to lack of space in its storage yard. Arbitration continued to decide whether the owner was entitled to refuse the orders of the charterer.

Astir Holdings, Inc. v. Xcoal Energy & Resources (The “Lacon”) – SMA No.4438, 25 February 2022

AMERICANIZED WELSH COAL CHARTER – DEMURRAGE – SECOND DISCHARGE BERTH – QUARANTINE INSPECTION – REPOSITIONING CREDIT
Xcoal Energy & Resources chartered Astir Holdings Inc. for carriage of coal from Mobile to one safe berth at Jingtang. En route, Xcoal changed its discharging port from Jingtang to Lanshan, and claimed a repositioning credit since Lanshan was closer to the vessel’s next port. Astir approved the request to unload at two discharging berths instead of the one that was contractually agreed upon, however exceptions to laytime and demurrage at the second berth were not discussed at the time. Arbitration was sought to determine if the charterer’s exceptions to time counting as demurrage should apply for the second discharging berth.

Stolt Tankers B.V. v. Tricon Energy Limited (The “Stolt Lotus”) – SMA No. 4442, 11 April 2022

DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – AMENDED ASBATANKVOY CHARTERPARTY – STORAGE OR DEMURRAGE
Stolt Tankers was chartered by Tricon Energy Limited to ship mono ethylene glycol (MEG) from Baton Rouge and Houston to Antwerp. At Antwerp, the cargo was transshipped to two barges, but the shipments were rejected before discharge. The charterer could not find suitable shoretank storage before another buyer was secured. Stolt submitted invoices to Tricon for “storage” after their 90 day demurrage time bar. NOTE: This recap includes the majority decision and dissenting opinion.

BBC Chartering Carriers GmbH & Co. KG v. Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais (M/V “LEFKES”) – SMA No. 4446, 4 July 2022

DEMURRAGE – LAYTIME CALCULATION – AMENDED GENCON 1994 CHARTER – NO CORRESPONDENCE
BBC Chartering Carriers and Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais entered into an amended GENCON charter to deliver galvanized steel coils from Praia Mole to Houston. After the voyage the charterer paid the freight invoice in full but disputed the total of the invoice for the demurrage costs. The charterer then gave no reasoning or defense for the disputed demurrage.

London Arbitration 29/22

SPEED AND CONSUMPTION METHODOLOGY – REDELIVERY – REDELIVERY OF BUNKERS – ARMED GUARDS – HULL FOULING – AMENDED NYPE 1946 FORM – TUG ASSISTANCE – OFF HIRE – BIMCO PIRACY CLAUSE
A subject vessel was chartered for four to seven months. After redelivery, the owner issued a Final Hire Statement, and the charterer denied owing any balance to the owner. The issues under dispute in the proceedings were speed and consumption, redelivery, redelivery of bunkers, armed guards, hull fouling, damage, and tug assistance.

London Arbitration 19/22

NOTICE OF READINESS – NOR – DEMURRAGE – ALTERNATIVE ANCHORAGE
The subject vessel was hired to transport aniline from China to Houston and tendered NOR while at the Shanghai shipyard. The owner claimed there was no waiting space at the loadport, the berth was occupied, and the anchorage at CJK was congested. Charterers denied demurrage costs incurred, asserting the NOR was invalid for it was not tendered at the customary anchorage per charterparty requirements. The owner asserted it was implied that if the vessel were not able to enter the loadport, NOR could be tendered at a location equidistant or nearer to the loadport than the customary anchorage.

London Arbitration 30/22

DEMURRAGE – AMENDED ASBATANKVOY FORM – NOTICE OF READINESS – NORT VIA EMAIL
The subject vessel was chartered on an amended Asbatankvoy form. After completion of the voyage, the owner submitted a claim for demurrage, however the charterer argued the notice of readiness at the discharge port was invalid because it was tendered via email. Charterer held time should start counting when discharge commenced.

London Arbitration 13/22

BREACH BY CHARTERER – EXCESS BUNKERS – REDELIVERY NOTICE – NYPE 1946 – QUANTIFICATION OF LOSS – FIXTURE RECAP
A vessel was chartered by a fixture recap incorporating the terms of an amended NYPE 1946 form. Charterer delivered the vessel back to her owner with excess bunkers and insufficient redelivery notices. Arbitration began to quantify the loss due to the two admitted charter breaches. The charterer admitted to the breaches of the charter, but claimed that the term “ABT” in the contract should offer them extra allowances in terms of the excess bunkers. The owner claimed that with sufficient redelivery notice they could have found alternative employment for the vessel.

London Arbitration 14/22

ADDITIONAL DISCHARGE BERTH – VEGOILVOY FORM – DURESS – TIME BAR – SPECIAL AGREEMENT – PORT LIMITS – DEMURRAGE – JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL – WAR RISK

A vessel was chartered on a standard Vegoilvoy for transport of soybean oil from Argentine to “1 SP/1SB BIK or BANDAR ABBAS [Iran] in CHOPT.” Charterer instructed the vessel to anchor outside port limits with higher war risk premium, before shifting to berth. The charterer then required a second berthing that was not contractually agreed upon. The owner offered an alternative “special agreement” with strict stipulations. The charterer claimed that they agreed to the stipulations and costs under duress and refused to remit payment.