Tagged: Vol. 17 No. 3

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".