Charterers claimed off-hire and a deduction from hire under a time charter trip, alleging that hull fouling on delivery reduced the vessel’s speed and performance and citing The Divinegate. Owners resisted the claim, arguing that the performance warranty was not engaged because there was insufficient “good weather” data within the meaning of the charterparty, and that The Divinegate was irrelevant. The Tribunal held that underwater fouling constituted a defect in the hull capable of engaging the off-hire clause and that Charterers were entitled to a deduction from hire, notwithstanding the lack of qualifying good-weather period under the performance clause. The performance-evidence regime did not prevent recovery where loss of speed was otherwise established.

Read the full judgment here.

The dispute arose from delay caused by rejected holds after NOR, with owners asserting an implied obligation on charterers to arrange reinspection, while charterers argued laytime remained suspended until acceptance. The tribunal held that inspection and acceptance lay on charterers’ side of the fence and that an implied term was necessary for commercial coherence, requiring charterers to exercise due diligence to arrange reinspection within a reasonable time. Although immediate reinspection was not required (regardless of practical constraints), charterers were found in breach for failing to take reasonable steps once the vessel was ready, and laytime resumed after a reasonable period had elapsed.

Read the full judgment here.

Under an amended NYPE T/C for a China-Canada trip, the Vessel failed to follow the route recommended by Charterers’ weather routing company, choosing instead one which in the event was 320 miles longer, on the (later-advanced) grounds that it better avoided a forecast typhoon. The LMAA SCP Arbitrator found that the Master’s contemporaneous justification made no reference to navigational safety (and indeed took the Vessel nearer the typhoon) and the longer route taken was solely to facilitate a crew change. Owners were responsible for the additional time and consumption. The Tribunal however dismissed Charterers’ claim that despite there being no “good weather” days as defined in the c/p, the Vessel nevertheless underperformed if weather and current factors were applied to average speed attained.

Read the full judgment here.

Under a sub-T/C for a trip to Persian Gulf, intention Iraq, with grain in bulk, the Vessel waited some 2.5 days off the discharge port, on upstream owners’ instructions, the latter having received (just 5 hours’ steaming away) a notice from Shippers/Sellers that that they had not been paid for the cargo (worth some USD16.8m). Dismissing Charterers’ off-hire claim, the Tribunal found that any shipowner could be expected to pause for thought and obtain advice, especially given the value of the cargo, the lateness of the notice and an intervening weekend.

Read the full judgment here.

Following delays due to the crew’s lack of COVID-19 PCR certificates, Charterers claimed the vessel was not “in every way fitted for the service” under the charterparty. Owners argued the recap took precedence and the certificates were not required, citing a carve-out for COVID-19 in the BIMCO disease clause. The Commercial Court ruled in Charterers’ favour, holding that PCR compliance was Owners’ responsibility and the deviation and delay were caused by Owners’ failure to comply with known regulations.

Under the amended NYPE 93 T/C trip from Terneuzen to Florida, the Master, having initially agreed and embarked upon Charterers’ recommended, shortest, northern route (via Pentland Firth), turned back in favour of the longer, souther (English Channel) route, in order to avoid Beaufort 9 conditions and waves in excess of 10m. Dismissing Charterers’ damages claim, the Tribunal found that due to legitimate safety concerns, the Owners were not in breach of Charter, and nor did the Master’s initial agreement preclude him from turning back.