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.

In the context of a “freight payable BBB” provision, a London Tribunal decided that there was no obstacle in ordering the Charterers to pay a monetary sum to the Owners, even though the Charterers were (or may have been) sanctioned by the USA.

Time-chartered Owners (‘O’) concluded a voyage charter with ‘C’ to carry petcoke from a Gulf port to India; C sub-chartered to ‘S’ on similar terms for the same voyage. When no cargo had been forthcoming at the load port, O redelivered the Vessel, terminated the voyage charter with C, and sought from C in arbitration unpaid freight, demurrage and, as damages, upstream hire. C applied to join S as a party to the arbitration on the grounds that the sub-voyage was a collateral contract and/or S a ‘necessary and proper party’ to the dispute. The Tribunal ruled that the sub-charter was an independent, not collateral contract and neither the 1996 Act, nor the LMAA Terms conferred powers to join parties or consolidate references.

Owners claimed some USD4.9m from Charterers in respect of unpaid hire, bunkers and expenses. Charterers (without any specifics) contended that Owners had issued unauthorised B/Ls, had failed (by discharging the carg0) to enforce Charterers’ lien for unpaid freight (having, they suggested, received payment direct from sub-charterers) and sought USD3.6m damages. Responding to Owners’ application for a partial final award, the Tribunal was only willing to award the difference of USD1.3m, on the basis that if Charterers’ claim were made out, Owners would have deprived them of the use of the Vessel by not retaining the cargo on board.

On a voyage charter on an ANVOY (amended Synacomex 90) form for the carriage of wheat from Russia to Brazil, charterers denied liability for demurrage and filed a counterclaim for despatch. The dispute arose due to delays at the loading port, where a phytosanitary certificate was delayed due to weather and document issues. Owners claimed that charterers had a 3-hour grace period to provide the documents once loading was completed on Saturday 29th October 2022, after which time counted. The charterers argued that laytime could not begin until 08:00 on October 31st as weekends were excluded and the 3 hours’ grace could only start after the bills of lading were signed. The Tribunal ruled for the owners, confirming that time lost after loading completion counted as if it were laytime, regardless of weekends, awarding the owners their full claim for demurrage plus interest and costs.

Following an initial award of unpaid hire to Owners, the Tribunal ordered Charterers to secure, in the sum of GBP 270,000, Owners’ costs of defending counterclaims, by means of 1^st class bank guarantee issued in England. Following requests for variation, the sum was ordered to be deposited with Owners’ solicitors, to be held on escrow terms. Charterers’ solicitors were thereupon dis-instructed, and following a peremptory order served at Charterers’ registered office (and other addresses) remained unsatisfied, the Tribunal, pursuant to s.41(6) of the Act, dismissed Charterers’ counterclaims, directing that Charterers bear their own costs relating to them.