Tagged: Vol. 18 No. 1

Horizon’s Edge Excursions, LLC. v. H. Dewayne Williams (The “Stolt Azalea”) – SMA No. 4012, 19 Sep 2008

ASBATANKVOY -- WHETHER BERTH CONGESTION IS BEYOND CHARTERER’S CONTROL -- NOTICE OF READINESS PRIOR TO FREE PRATIQUE -- PRORATED LAYTIME -- Owner Award Charterer attempted to dispute Owner's demurrage claim on the basis that berth congestion was a condition beyond charterer's control per ASBATANKVOY Clause 6, time cannot commence until the vessel is in free pratique, and time spent simultaneously discharging another charterer's cargo should be prorated.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Scope Navigation, Inc. v. Standard Tankers Bahamas Ltd. (The “Seaking”) – SMA No. 4104, 17 Dec 2010

EXXONMOBIL VOY 2005 -- INTEREST ON UNDISPUTED DEMURRAGE -- ADVERSE WEATHER -- DEPARTURE DELAY DUE TUGS -- SIGNING DOCUMENTS -- REDELIVERY OF LIGHTERAGE EQUIPMENT AND MOORING MASTER -- Partial Owner Award At issue is whether Charterer is responsible for interest on a late payment of undisputed demurrage, whether weather related delays existed within the context of ExxonMobil VOY2005's Clause 14, whether Charterer or Owner was responsible for the delay in departing berth due to a lack of tugs, whether time ceased at documents onboard or upon signing, and the assessment of time after a transshipment i.e. whether time stops at hoses off or upon the Vessel redelivering the lighterage equipment and mooring master.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Team Tankers AS v. Lukoil Pan Americas, LLC. (The “Loukas 1”) – SMA No. 4124, 9 May 2011

EXXONMOBIL VOY 2000 -- MISSING ANCHOR -- INTERIM CLASS CERTIFICATE -- SEAWORTHINESS -- SAFE PORT -- DETENTION -- ROLE OF AGENT -- Partial Owner Award At issue is whether the Owner is in breach of the seaworthiness obligation or Charterer failed to nominate a safe port; and, the relevant assessment of demurrage and detention. Just prior to the fixture, Vessel lost 1 of 2 forward anchors. After obtaining class approval to operate with one anchor temporarily, Vessel tendered NOR at Charterer's load port, informed the Vessel's agent of the missing anchor, loaded and proceeded to the disport range of Northern Chile. After waiting several days, Vessel was instructed to the disport but the pilot refused to berth her given the port's two-anchor requirement. After a replacement anchor was fitted the Vessel encountered delays at subsequent discharge ports due to lack of tankage. In addition to demurrage, Owner claimed detention from Vessel's arrival off Chile until berthing at the first discharge berth.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 6/11

GENCON -- DEMURRAGE -- TIDE -- EXCESSIVE AIR DRAFT -- TERMINAL BREAKDOWN OR BAD WEATHER -- Partial Owner Award Whilst loading, operations ceased due to excessive air draft of the Vessel during high tide. Later operations stopped again due to either the breakdown of the terminal’s camera or bad weather. Owner claimed demurrage during both delays which Charterer refuted.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 9/11

GENCON -- SOF VS METEOROLOGICAL REPORT -- FREIGHT CALCULATION WHEN DISPORT NOT NAMED IN FIXTURE -- Partial Owner Award At the disport the Vessel’s statement of facts (SOF) referenced possible weather related delays yet when Charterer attempted to deduct said delays from time counting, Owner produced a weather report for a nearby port which reflected fair weather during the time in question. Additionally, there was a dispute over the calculation of freight when the nominated disport, albeit an acceptable port option, was not within any of the port ranges in the fixture’s freight rate schedule.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Suek AG v. Glencore International AG (The “Hang Ta”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 19 May 2011

CIF SALES CONTRACT -- WIBON -- BERTH CONGESTION CONCURRENT WITH TIDE DELAY -- Seller Award Upon arrival at the discharge port the berth was occupied and inaccessible owing to tide. Per the WIBON phrase in the CIF Sales Contract, Notice of Readiness (NOR) could be tendered prior to arrival in berth should the berth be occupied. The Buyer, however, argued that in this instance NOR must be tendered at the berth since congestion was not the sole cause of delay.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Glory Wealth Shpping Pte. Ltd. v. Korea Line Corp. (The “Wren”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 14 July 2011

NYPE -- REPUDIATED TIME-CHARTER -- MEASURE OF DAMAGES -- Charterer Award and Seller Award This court case is an appeal by Charterer of an arbitration award. When the economy went sour, Charterer wrongfully repudiated a time-charter contract. At the time of the repudiation there was no available long-term charter market on which to base Owner’s damages. About six months later an available market developed. The arbitration panel awarded Owner damages using a hybrid assessment: actual losses based on spot trading and then market losses once a long-term charter market emerged (despite Owner opting, for own business reasons, to continue trading on the spot market).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Far East Chartering Ltd. (The “Jag Ravi”) – English Court of Appeal, 9 Mar 2012

FOB SALES CONTRACT-- LETTER OF INDEMNITY -- WRONGFUL DELIVERY -- SALES CONTRACT -- Owner Award The Vessel discharged cargo without presentation of Bills of Lading (B/Ls) per the Receiver's Letter of Indemnity (LOI) to the Voyage Charterer. FOB Seller successfully claimed damages from Owner for delivering cargo without presentation of the Bills of Lading with Owner subsequently claiming indemnity from Receiver as Owner had acted as an agent of Charterer as referenced within the LOI.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

National Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia v. BP Oil Supply Co. (The “Abqaiq”) – Court of Appeal, 12 Oct 2011

BPVOY4 -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME-BAR -- DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TIMELY BUT CLAIM MISLABELED AS DEVIATION -- COST OF BUNKERS FOR CALLING SAME BERTH TWICE -- Partial Owner Award This award is Owner’s appeal of the Commercial Court’s 22 Nov 10 decision. When Vessel was required by Charterer to attend to the same load berth twice, Owner invoiced the time and bunkers consumed for the second call as a deviation claim. In addition, demurrage was claimed by Owner for excess time used at the discharge port. 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; firstly, 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.

Stolt Tankers Inc. v. Landmark Chemicals SA (The “Stolt Spur”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 21 Dec 2001

ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- WORKING OTHER CARGOES -- TANK CLEANING -- Charterer Award In the appeal to the High Court the judge agreed with the arbitrators that if the vessel was unavailable to the charterers for their cargo operations because she was being used by the owners for their own purposes, the owners were deriving a benefit even if the vessel was still waiting for a berth.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.