2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Odfjell Seachem A/S v. Continentale Des Petroles et D’Investissesments and Anr (The “Bow Cedar”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 15 Dec 2004

BPVOY 4 -- CHARTER PARTY -- CARGO -- LAYTIME -- TIME-BAR -- Owner Award After the Vessel had arrived, tendered NOR, and waited for berthing instructions until after the 84H laytime allowance expired, the Charterer cancelled the Charter Party due to being unable to supply cargo. The Owner responded with a damages claim eleven months later; however, there is a stipulation in the charter that states that any claim after 180 days is time-barred.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 34/04

SHELLTIME 4 -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- DEADFREIGHT -- POSSESSORY LIEN -- DISPORT -- TIME-CHARTER -- OFF-HIRE -- Owner Award In response to a Charterer agreement to use the unclean Vessel for transporting sub-Charterer's naphtha cargo, the sub-Charterer refused to load the Vessel to full capacity in fear of cargo contamination. The Charterer subsequently claimed deadfreight and incurred a possessory lien for over a month at disport. Under the time-charter contract, the Owner seeks hire payment for the month-long arrest which the Charterer deducted as off-hire.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Petroleo Brasileiro v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Kriti Akti”) – SMA No. 3845, 25 May 2004

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- BARGE -- BERTH -- PORT -- DEMURRAGE -- ACT OF GOD -- Owner Award After part cargo discharge to barge, bad weather delayed the Vessel’s berth at port thereby incurring an Owner demurrage claim. The Charterer agreed to the fine, however, requested that this claim be offset by consolidating it with other outstanding claims that the Owner owes to the Charterer (making net demurrage due Charterer).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Lakeview Maritime Ltd. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Astro Altair”) – SMA No. 3841, 29 Apr 2004

ASBATANKVOY -- ARRIVAL DRAFT -- DISPORT -- DEMURRAGE -- DRAFT -- CHARTER PARTY -- LAYTIME -- ARBITRATION -- Charterer Award Although the Charterers assured that an arrival draft of forty feet was acceptable, tidal changes delayed the Vessel’s arrival to disport. The Owners submitted a claim for demurrage arguing that the Charterers draft levels kept the Vessel from reaching disport. But the Charterers reference a clause in the Charter Party which states that tidal delays cannot count as laytime in arbitration.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Petroleo Brasileiro, SA v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Kriti Art”) – SMA No. 3838, 23 Apr 2004

ASBATANKVOY -- DISCHARGE -- PORT -- DRAFT -- DEMURRAGE -- ARBITRATION -- Charterer Award The Vessel was required to discharge at two separate ports, however, the draft was erroneously calculated to only accommodate the deeper port. And upon arrival at the deeper port, the berth was occupied by another vessel thereby detaining the Owner’s Vessel. So in response to Owner’s subsequent demurrage, the Charterers blame the erroneous draft level for the delay because otherwise the Vessel could discharge at the shallower (but unoccupied) port first.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Odfjell Seachem AS v. Vinmar International Ltd. (The “NCC Arar”) – SMA No. 3837, 21 Apr 2004

ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- ARBITRATION -- TIME-BAR -- BARGE -- DISPORT -- CLAIM -- Owner Award In this case, there were four separate demurrage issues under dispute. Arbitration disputes focused on the time-bar clause, the allocation of time spent overloading the Vessel and subsequent reloading, delays waiting for the Charterer’s barge at disport, and the Owner’s right to increase a claim.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Gulfcoast Transit Co. v. Russian Farm Community Project (The “Litrico”) – SMA No. 3836, 14 Apr 2004

BALTIMORE GRAIN CP -- DISPORT -- BERTH -- ARBITRATION -- LAYTIME -- PORT -- Partial Owner Award Although blocked by disport by seventeen miles of ice, the Vessel tendered NOR and awaited icebreaker assistance for five days before continuing to berth. At arbitration, the Owners view the NOR as a valid beginning of laytime and any further delays at port were the fault of the Charterers. The Charterers counterclaimed that an NOR tendered seventeen miles from port limits cannot be considered valid.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Shell’s New Release: SHELLVOY 6 – A Demurrage Analyst’s Perspective

SHELLVOY 6, recently introduced and put into use by Shell effective April 2005, provides an update to SHELLVOY 5 in many different ways. As a quick background, SHELLVOY 5 was created in 1987 and last updated in 1999 through the use of Shell’s additional clauses. SHELLVOY 6 incorporates all of the 1999 standard amendments and further attempts to clarify SHELLVOY 5 in other aspects of a voyage charter. The below will provide a quick summary of the demurrage changes between SHELLVOY 5 and SHELLVOY 6. Although a dry (no pun intended) subject, operations personnel, contract administrators and last but not least, demurrage analysts should find this overview germane.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 24/04

ARBITRATION -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- CONTAMINANTS -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- DELAY -- Owner Award This arbitration dispute centers around the fault of cargo contamination and the proper evidence to support the blame. After contaminants were found in the tank samples, the Vessel was forced off berth and the Owner filed demurrage for the cleaning time. The Charterer counterclaimed that the contamination came from the Vessel’s tank, so therefore, any delays came from Owner unreadiness.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 26/04

NYPE -- CHARTER -- VOYAGE -- ARBITRATION -- CONTRACT -- RE-DELIVERED VESSEL BUNKER COSTS -- Owner Award The governing period charter rate, in this case, is defined by "per Platts Oilgram average on delivery." However, the delivery day price was not available until after voyage, so the prior day’s rate was used and then updated when the delivery day price was published. The Charterer refuted this change arguing that the updated average became available only after delivery and was in breach of the contract.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.