Tagged: Vol. 11 No. 3

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.