Tagged: Jul/Sep 2011

Westport Petroleum, Inc. v. Falcon Carrier Shipping Ltd. (The “Falcon Carrier”) – SMA No. 4085, 9 Aug 2010

ASBATANKVOY -- JURISDICTION -- DEVIATION EXPENSE -- FAILURE TO ACCEPT FULL CARGO -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME BAR -- Charterer Award Charterer paid lump sum freight on the mother vessel basis a full cargo of 66K MT. When mother vessel could only load 63K MT, daughter vessel incurred deviation expenses when she had to return to Singapore to discharge the balance of the cargo. At arbitration, Owner questioned jurisdiction claiming Charterer failed to properly inform them of the arbitration, Charterer claimed costs of the deviation and Owner claimed demurrage which charterer claimed was time barred.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Team Tankers AS v. Tricon Shipping Ltd. (The “Siteam Merkur”) – SMA No. 4086, 16 Aug 2010

ASBATANKVOY -- UNSEAWORTHINESS -- FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL -- MITIGATION COSTS -- EXTRA INSPECTION COSTS -- Charterer Award An extension of SMA 4016, the central issue to be decided is whether the cargo was adequately described in the charter and whether Charterer is obliged to notify Owner as to the cargo's sensitivity to iron thereby requiring tank coatings to be intact. This Award affirms that the Q88 should reference the Vessel’s current condition as opposed to the "as built" condition and that there is a breach of the Charter Party should the Vessel’s tanks not conform with the Q88.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Precious Ornaments Ltd. v. Helena Chartering Inc. (The “Manisamut Naree) – SMA No. 4088, 15 Sep 2010

NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- RISK OF PIRACY -- DEVIATION AND SECURITY GUARD EXPENSE -- Owner Award Due to the prevalence of piracy, Vessel deviated to take on security experts. The Panel deemed the deviation to be a reasonable act, consistent with due diligence and good seamanship. Furthermore, the Panel considered the deviation to be in the interest of both parties and as such, the Vessel was on-hire throughout the deviation with the cost of the security personnel shared equally by Owner and Charterer.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Grupo TMM, SA de CV v. Resirene SA de CV (The “Silver Wind”) – SMA No. 4091, 30 Sep 2010

ASBATANKVOY -- SHORTAGE AND CONTAMINATION -- DAMAGES SET-OFF AGAINST DEMURRAGE -- Partial Final Award When Vessel suffered a lengthy breakdown at Charterer’s supplier’s berth, Charterer withheld demurrage payment whilst claiming damages from Owner. Citing an earlier Court decision, the Panel ruled that "Unless there are explicit and clear provisions in the Charter Party permitting deductions from freight, Shipowner is entitled to freight regardless of Charterer’s claim for damage, shortage and contamination."
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Free Enterprise Shipping Co. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Aegean Glory”) – SMA No. 4093, 25 Sep 2010

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- COGSA -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award Due to discrepancies in samples taken at the load port and tests done at the discharge port, Charterer was unable to prove that contamination of a cargo of diesel occurred onboard the ship despite a clean Bill of Lading (B/L) having been issued.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 2/11

TIME CHARTER -- ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATORY BREACH -- EARLY REDELIVERY OF THE VESSEL -- DAMAGES -- Owner Award Well prior to the contractual end of the Charter Party, Charterer notified Owner of its intention of premature redelivery unless Owner reconsidered the daily hire. Owner took Charterer’s statement to be an anticipatory repudiatory breach and in order to minimize losses Owner looked for alternative employment and took the Vessel back 653 days before earliest redelivery. Owner was subsequently awarded the balance of hire owed and loss of earnings being the difference between the net charter party rate and the net market rate.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd. v. Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. (The “Kildare”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 28 Apr 2010

CONSECUTIVE VOYAGE CHARTER -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- DAMAGES -- Owner Award When Charterer repudiated a Consecutive Voyage Charter (CVC) 4.5 years early, and as there was no comparable market at the time of the repudiation with Vessel subsequently traded on the spot market, the Court ruled that damages paid to Owner were to reflect the difference between what Vessel would have earned under the CVC and what the Vessel earned on the spot market (i.e. the Vessel’s actual losses) less 1.5% to account for the accelerated receipt and less 1.5% to reflect "catastrophic contingencies" such as the possibility that the Vessel would become a total loss prior to when the CVC would have concluded. The emergence of a comparable market after the repudiation was deemed moot in regards to the calculation of damages as it needed to exist at the time of repudiation to be taken into consideration.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Choil Trading SA v. Sahara Energy Resources LTD ( The “Prem Mala”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.) 26 Feb 2010

SALES CONTRACT -- FOB SALE -- CONTAMINATED CARGO -- DAMAGES -- HEDGING LOSSES FLOW NATURALLY FROM BREACH -- SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979 -- Buyer Award Given that the quality of naphtha originating from the Port Harcourt Refining Company (PHRC) in Nigeria was variable, the naphtha was sold "as is" and “PHRC naphtha quality”. Thus, the Court ruled that when the naphtha was found to be contaminated with MTBE, Buyer was not obliged to accept the cargo given that it contained a contaminate not normally present in naphtha produced by PHRC.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

National Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia v. BP Oil Supply Co. ( The “Abqaiq”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 22 Nov 2010

BPVOY 4 -- SAME BERTH CALLED TWICE -- CARGO NOT READY WITHIN LAYDAYS -- WAITING TIME AND BUNKER COSTS -- DETENTION OR DEMURRAGE -- SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS -- TIME-BAR -- Charterer Award The Vessel was required by Charterer to attend to the same load berth twice with Owner subsequently claiming for the time and bunkers consumed. At the disport, Owner invoiced for excess time used as demurrage. Charterer agreed to and paid a "final agreed demurrage invoice" which covered demurrage and then claimed that the load port expenses should have been submitted as demurrage. Owner subsequently altered the load port claim such that it was for demurrage with Charterer subsequently denying it twofold; first, demurrage had already been settled in full and secondly, the claim for demurrage at the load port was now time-barred.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

X v. Y – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 9 Feb 2011

SYNACOMEX 2000 -- CONSECUTIVE VOYAGE CHARTER -- UNPAID DEMURRAGE -- COMMENCEMENT OF TIME-BAR -- Owner Award Chartered for three consecutive voyages, a dispute arose over the time bar provision which required arbitration to be commenced "within 12 months of final discharge or termination of this Charter Party".
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.