2026 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
VEGOILVOY -- SUBSTANTIAL FAILURE OF EPOXY COATING OF CARGO TANKS -- TANK LINING -- VESSEL SUITABILITY -- WHETHER OWNERS IN BREACH OF CHARTER -- Charterer Award
The Charterer's inspector rejected the Vessel's tanks due to severe corrosion and rust, and declared the Vessel unsuitable. Charterer held the Owner in breach of the charter not only for the condition of the tanks, but also if the Vessel's tanks were actually epoxy coated as presented in the charter party. Charterer won the initial dispute in the Court of Singapore. Owners appealed, and this award details how the Court approached the issue.
NYPE -- TIME CHARTER TRIP -- SUBSTANTIAL DELAYS AT DISPORT -- IMPLIED TERM TO DISCHARGE WITHIN REASONABLE TIME -- OWNERS’ CLAIM FOR FINANCIAL LOSS -- Charterer Award
Under a NYPE form time charter, the Vessel delivered cargo to Lagos, but wasn't given berthing instructions for nine months. Owners commenced arbitration to recover lost profits from the delay in redelivering the Vessel. How did the Panel define "reasonable time" under a NYPE charter party? This Panel's ruling lays out what happens when parties don't include protective clauses with specific wording in their contracts.
GENCON -- DEMURRAGE -- WHETHER BERTH OR PORT CHARTER -- NIGHT TRANSIT -- GROUNDING -- AWAITING PILOT -- SHIFT TO BERTH -- Owner Award
This award covered a number of issues, including whether the fixture of "one safe berth" and a WIBON (whether in berth or not) constituted a berth charter party, whether or not port restrictions on night transits are demurrage events, and how a pilot shortage affected the Panel's ruling on waiting time and a grounding incident.
ASBATANKVOY -- INTERPRETATION OF RELOAD CLAUSE -- FREIGHT ASSESSMENT -- NUMBER OF CARGO GRADES CARRIED -- Charterer Award
During the discharge at Freeport, Charterers informed Owners that they planned on loading additional cargo after discharge operations completed. Owners commenced arbitration to recover this freight payment from Charterers. Charterers disagreed, claiming that they were within their rights to reload cargo at any discharge port within the scope of the charter party. This award describes how the Panel interpreted the special provisions clauses and applied them to the dispute.
ASBATANKVOY -- TIME-BAR -- CHARTERPARTY CONSTRUCTION -- HEATING AND PURGING -- Owner Award
Owners submitted a claim for additional heating and purging costs beyond the scope of the requirements in the charter party, but Charterers rejected the claim as time-barred. The Panel was called on to settle the dispute and explained how specific modifications to the charter party terms affected their ruling.
As with most laytime and demurrage issues, charter party terms and conditions spell out when time starts and stops– but what happens when a Vessel loads at an FPSO (Floating Production, Storage and Offloading vessel)? Although no charter party boilerplate specifically mentions the FPSO operation, this is not an issue because it is generally incorporated by a catch-all phrase like, “…or any other loading or discharging point whatsoever to which Charterers are entitled to order the vessel hereunder” and thus all the laytime and demurrage provisions would apply. Problems can arise, however, when clauses are modified during the fixture negotiation process. In particular, since shipowners oftentimes modify the Conoco Weather Clause1 by stipulating that weather delays count in full at transshipment areas, lighterage, and for STS operations, the question arises whether this implicitly applies to FPSO operations too. Although Owners’ intention is to mitigate adverse weather delays (including wind and swells) that ships are frequently subjected to in these areas of operation at sea, said amendment may not necessarily include delays at an FPSO.
ASBATANKVOY -- BILL OF LADING -- NOR TENDERED OUTSIDE PORT LIMITS -- "QUICK DEPARTURE" PROCEDURE -- PIRACY -- Owner Award
Charterers presented two complaints against the Owner in this arbitration. The first was regarding a "quick departure procedure" in which a verbal agreement was made between Charterer's and Owner's agents, for the Vessel to sail the loadport without a copy of the bill of lading onboard. The second was regarding the Vessel's location when she tendered NOR at the Nigerian discharge port. The award details why the Panel rejected any agreements made by agents, and how the threat of piracy off the shore of Nigeria affected the Panel's ruling on what constituted a valid NOR.
NYPE -- TIME-CHARTER -- SPEED WARRANTY -- BUNKER CONSUMPTION -- CHARTERPARTY LANGUAGE -- APPLICATION OF MARGIN FOR "ABOUT" -- EXERCISE OF LIEN OVER CARGO (OFF HIRE) -- Partial Owner, Partial Charterer Award
The Panel in this dispute was called on to determine the amount recoverable by Charterers under a time charter for the Vessel's underperformance in the warranted speed and for the over-consumption of bunkers. The award details how the Panel calculated the damages.
GENCON -- NOR VALIDITY -- TENDERED PRIOR TO LEGALLY BEING ABLE TO ENTER THE PORT -- LOCAL AUTHORITIES -- DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award
The Vessel arrived and tendered NOR at the Libyan discharge port despite not having received permission to discharge from the Libyan Port Authority. Four days after arrival, permission was granted. The Vessel had missed her turn at berth, and the port had closed for a period due to inclement weather. The Charterer rejected both the NOR and the subsequent demurrage claim. The award explains the consequences for the Owner for failing to re-tender NOR after receiving permission to discharge.
GENCON -- VESSEL ARRESTED WHILE AWAITING BERTH -- FORCE MAJEURE -- HURRICANE -- STORM -- WEATHER -- GROUNDING -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
Although the loading operations were uneventful, the discharge on the Mississippi River was delayed due to a recent hurricane (Katrina) as well as the threat of another hurricane (Rita). Charterers declared force majeure, and, in the event that the Panel did not agree, also argued that the demurrage claim should be reduced during an eight day period that the Vessel was under arrest. The award explains why the Panel upheld the Owners claim in full, despite the arrest and a grounding incident.
