Tagged: Oct/Dec 2000

ASBATANKVOY — ARBITRATION — VOYAGE — DISPORT — CARGO — SAMPLE — CONTAMINATION — BERTH — Partial and Full Owner Award

The Owners began arbitration to collect outstanding payments on two separate voyages with the Charterers. On the first voyage, the Vessel was delayed for two days at disport when cargo samples revealed unacceptable water content. And on the second voyage, when the Vessel arrived at disport, she was forced to wait ten days for berthing instructions.

ASBATANKVOY — DISPORT — DEMURRAGE — BERTH — SHORESIDE — ARBITRATION — CHARTER PARTY — Owner Award

Upon arriving at disport, the Vessel accrued extensive demurrage while being forced to wait for a free berth and shoreside storage space. And when the Owner started arbitration to recover demurrage, the Charterers did not appoint an arbitrator, denied the existence of a binding charter party, and refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Panel to settle disputes.

ASBATANKVOY — DISPORT — DEMURRAGE — BERTH — SHORESIDE — ARBITRATION — CHARTER PARTY — Owner Award

Upon arriving at disport, the Vessel accrued extensive demurrage while being forced to wait for a free berth and shoreside storage space. And when the Owner started arbitration to recover demurrage, the Charterers did not appoint an arbitrator, denied the existence of a binding charter party, and refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Panel to settle disputes.

AMWELSH — STEAMING — BERTH — PORT — DRAFT — DEMURRAGE — Owner Award

Because of delays steaming upriver, the Vessel missed her designated berthing time and was forced to wait once she arrived at port. The Owners contend that this delay was due to an insufficient draft while steaming, therefore making it demurrage. The Charterers, on the other hand, argue that this time was un-billable because engine trouble caused the delays to port.

ASBATANKVOY — WORLDSCALE — DISPORT — LIGHTERING — BERTH — FREIGHT — Charterer Award

Fixed under a contract where Worldscale terms apply when not already defined, the Vessel was chartered to discharge at three different locations. However, at one location, the Owners are claiming that because of dual operations (lightering and berthing), they should count as two separate disports which would require extra freight compensation from the Charterers.

ASBATANKVOY — LOADPORT — BERTH — ICE BREAKER — CARGO — PORT — VOYAGE — Charterer Award

Because the loadport’s national ice service increased ice class limitations on entering vessels, the Vessel was denied access to berth, and subsequently, the voyage was terminated. The Owners blame the Charterers for failing in their obligation to find a safe berth upon arrival. Conversely, the Charterers argue that their supplier could not provide cargo at another port and accuse the Owners of failing to provide an appropriate vessel for the voyage.