Tagged: Vol. 12 No. 4

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Jo Tankers BV v. Tankers Bahamas Ltd. (The “Jo Eik”) – SMA No. 3905, 28 Nov 2005

EXXONMOBIL VOY2000 -- PURGE -- VOYAGE ORDERS -- LOAD PORT -- CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT -- CARGO HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS -- Charterer Award This arbitration stems from the Contract of Affreightment on ExxonMobil Voy2000 and the responsibility of nitrogen purging. In this case, when the Vessel reached the load port, the Charterers refused Vessel loading because the tanks were not purged to the cargo’s required .5% O2 level. The Owners, however, brought evidence proving that the specific purging requirements were not included in the COA or the voyage orders.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

China Shipping Development Co. Ltd. v. Richshine Metal, Inc. (The “Sea Light II”) – SMA No. 3907, 14 Dec 2005

VOYAGE CHARTER PARTY -- LAYDAY -- CARGO -- CHARTER PARTY -- DEMURRAGE -- DEADFREIGHT -- DETENTION -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- Owner Award The Vessel arrived at loadport and tendered NOR within laycan, however the Charterer failed to supply the cargo. The Charterer, after fourteen days of expressing to the Owner that loading would begin soon, cancelled the Charter Party because of "unexpected problems." The Owner subsequently demanded compensation for damages to demurrage, deadfreight, and detention.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Odfjell Seachem AS v. Clariant Corp. (The “Bow Favour”, “Bow Andino”, & “Bow Gorgonilla”) – SMA No. 3915, 21 Feb 2006

ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- FREIGHT -- ARBITRATION -- VOYAGE -- INTEREST ON FREIGHT AND DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award After outstanding demurrage and freight bills for three separate voyages, the Owner began arbitration to recover lost profits and interest. Although the Charterer did not participate in the proceedings, the sole arbitrator pointed out several issues with the Vessel's NOR at the loadport which could have been contested.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Japan Sun Oil Company v. Jo Tankers BV (The “JO Brevik”) – SMA No. 3919, 9 Apr 2006

BURDEN OF PROOF -- ARBITRATION -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- CARGO -- PORT -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- Owner Award Upon arriving at the discharge port, the Vessel’s cargo was discovered to be heavily contaminated with sea water. The Charterers subsequently began arbitration to recover expenses; however the Charterer’s claim must prove that cargo quality was intact before voyage and was contaminated after discharge.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Interchem 2000 Logistics BV v. Suffolk Tankers Co. Ltd. (The “Rachel B”) – SMA No. 3920, 12 Apr 2006

BURDEN OF PROOF -- SEAWORTHY -- BARGING COSTS -- STORAGE FEES -- THROUGHPUT CHARGES -- Partial Owner Award The Charterers sought arbitration for additional barging costs, storage fees, and throughput charges because of Owner's failure to provide a seaworthy vessel. Such charges, however, require the Charterers to support their claim with ample evidence.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Arcadia Petroleum Ltd. v. Sun International Ltd. (The “Madelaine”) – No. 05-1259. 3rd Circuit, 18 Aug 2006

ASBATANKVOY -- CHARTER PARTY -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME BAR -- Charterer Award A clause in this case’s Charter Party stated that all claims become void unless arbitration begins within one year post-voyage. But after reaching a subsequent demurrage agreement with the Charterer within the specified timeframe, the Owners began arbitration several years later stating that this informal agreement constituted a recognizable second contract.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 3/06

VOYAGE CHARTER PARTY -- DEADFREIGHT -- DRAFT RESTRICTIONS -- DISCHARGE PORT -- CHARTER PARTY -- QUANTITY IN OWNER’S OPTION -- Charterer Award In order to meet draft restrictions at disport, the Charterers loaded less than the maximum capacity allowable by the Vessel. In response to the subsequent deadfreight due to the Charterers’ port selection, the Owner started arbitration referencing that the Charterers violated the "always accessible" port clause in their charter and demanded that the deadfreight be compensated.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 4/06

SYNACOMEX -- DEADFREIGHT -- CHARTER PARTY -- CARGO -- DOCK -- BUNKER -- PORT -- SHIFT TIME -- SHORTLOAD -- SHIFT TIME -- ONCE ON DEMURRAGE ALWAYS ON DEMURRAGE -- DETENTION -- Partial Charterer Award In this case, the Charterers failed to provide the contracted amount of cargo and agreed to pay the deadfreight rate stipulated in the Charter Party. However, the Charterers argued that the benefits of deadfreight, such as dock savings, bunker savings, and savings on port charges, should offset the net deadfreight cost billed to them.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 5/06

FIXTURE RECAP -- CHARTER PARTY -- TIME CHARTER RECAP "A.D.A. WOG" -- SPEED AND CONSUMPTION WARRANTY -- Owner Award The central conflict of this case is the language and intention of "A.D.A. WOG" (“All Details About Without Guarantee”) in the context of contracts. In this case, the Charterer claimed that the acronym only applies to the recaps containing “about” in their description. The Owner, on the other hand, argues that because - in this instance - it concludes the speed and consumption recap, it applies to all preceding statements.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 6/06

POSSESSORY LIEN -- ARBITRATION -- DISPORT -- BERTH -- TIME CHARTER TRIP -- DEVIATION -- OFF-HIRE DEDUCTION -- CARGO LIEN -- Owner Award En route to disport, the Charterers deducted an off-hire deviation from the Owner without consent. Subsequently, the Owner exercised his right of a possessory lien by refusing to berth at the discharge port until properly reimbursed. At arbitration, the two major issues were if the Owner had acted in the right by refusing discharge and if the initial deduction by the Charterers was properly submitted.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.