2026 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
NYPE — TIME CHARTER — OFF-HIRE — SEAWORTHINESS — BUNKER — ARBITRATION — Partial Owner Award
Throughout the life of the time charter contract, the Vessel had experienced extensive engine problems which rendered the Vessel off-hire on several occasions. The Charterers billed the Owners for the off-hire time and claimed that the delays were because of Vessel unseaworthiness. The Owners, on the other hand, blame the Charterer-supplied, low-grade bunkers for the engine trouble.
ASBATANKVOY — DIRTY CARGO — CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT — CONTAMINATION — SWEET CARGO — FREIGHT — Owner Award
After transporting several dirty cargos as instructed in the COA, the Charterer ordered the OBO Vessel to load a “sweet” cargo. The Vessel began loading, but when foot samples were taken, the freight was noticeably contaminated. At arbitration, the Owners claim that the Charterers had no proof of Vessel-caused contamination due to lack of shore samples and unreliable analysis reports.
AMWELSH — FORCE MAJEURE — LOADPORT — FOG — LOCK — CARGO — DEMURRAGE — Owner Award
The Vessel arrived at loadport, tendered NOR, and passed inspection. But due to fog and lock outages, the Charterers declared force majeure (“unexpected event that can excuse a party from a contract”) and told the Owner that the cargo’s arrival would be delayed. The Owners subsequently filed for demurrage arguing that the Charterers failed to provide a timely notice of such delays.
ASBATANKVOY — LOADPORT — EXPORT — DEMURRAGE — BERTHING — EMBARGO — CARGO — Owner Award
When the Vessel arrived at loadport, the port’s national government halted all oil exports because of United Nations pricing disputes. The Owner filed a demurrage claim for the berthing delay incurred by this embargo citing that the cargo must conform at all times with UN standards. The Charterers counterclaim that the oil suspension should be seen as a “restraint of prices,” which the charter views as billable.
ASBATANKVOY — LOADPORT — CARGO — CLAIM — DETENTION — PORT — MITIGATION — VOYAGE — Partial Owner Award
Upon the Vessel berthing at loadport, the Owners received a message stating that the Charterers could not supply the contracted cargo. The Owners subsequently filed a claim for detention, port expenses, and loss on mitigation voyage.
ASBATANKVOY — BERTH — LOADPORT — ROB — LSWR — DEMURRAGE — TANK — Split Award
Because the Vessel berthed at loadport with over 2000 bbls of residual LSWR (previous cargo), the Charterer refused Vessel loading and ordered extensive tank cleaning. The Owners submitted demurrage for the cleaning delay because they argue that the tanks met the contracted cleaning stipulations, while the Charterers counterclaim for the cleaning costs maintaining that the excessive residue rendered the Vessel unready to load.
ASBATANKVOY — ARBITRATION — DEMURRAGE — INVOICE — PRIMA FACIE — Owner Award
The Owners began arbitration to recover an outstanding demurrage claim after hearing no Charterer-reply to their invoices. The Owners based their claim as prima facie.
ASBATANKVOY — ARBITRATION — DEADFREIGHT — BROKER — CHARTER PARTY — VOYAGE — CARGO — Owner Award
When the Charterer cancelled the contract and refused to supply cargo on both the original and mitigated voyages, the Owner began arbitration in order to recover the resulting deadfreight damages. The Charterer blames the broker in constructing a contract outside of the Charterer’s instructions which absolves the Charterer from a binding agreement to supply cargo.
SHELLTIME 3 — ARBITRATION — BUNKER — TIME CHARTER — TIME-BAR — RECAP — Partial Owner Award
The primary dispute at arbitration was the proper assessment of bunker consumption and speed allowances in a time charter contract. Because the Vessel exceeded these recap minimums, the Owner demanded reimbursement. However, the Charterer argued that the claim was time-barred, but in response submitted a counterclaim for pumping deficiencies.
ASBATANKVOY — DISPORT — CARGO — CONTAMINATION — SAMPLE — LOADPORT — TERMINAL — Owner Award
When the Vessel arrived at disport, the discharged cargo was found to be contaminated upon sampling. The Charterer subsequently claimed damages in light of the loadport samples being uncontaminated. However, the Owners refuted the loadport samples’ accuracy and argued that they were taken forty-nine days prior to loading and only from one of the two terminal tanks.
