A Gencon 94 C/P for the carriage of bauxite provided that demurrage and balance of freight were payable within 20 banking days of completion of discharge.  Before arrival at discharge, Owners demanded load port demurrage, and threated to lien the cargo. The Tribunal set aside the ensuing agreement to Owners’ figures on the grounds that it was obtained by economic duress. Nevertheless, on the merits, Owners’ calculations had been correct and the economic duress had little impact on the end result.

Read the full judgement here.

In January 2023,  having loaded ammonium nitrate at a Sea of Azov port for the Black Sea, under an amended Gencon 94, the Vessel was halted at the Kerch Strait by the Russian Authorities, due to the nature of the cargo. Prolonged delay ensued, followed by eventual landing of the cargo at the load port. The Tribunal held that the interference was unforeseeable, thus not a breach of the safe port warranty.  Nevertheless damages for detention were payable under the incorporated Voywar 93 clause, Charterers having failed to act decisively (in particular by nominating an alternative discharge port).

Read the full judgement here.

Time Charterers relied on a WRC Report to justify deductions from hire for underperformance and overconsumption based on (i) extrapolated ‘good weather’ underperformance; alternatively (ii) a fouled hull on delivery. The Tribunal dismissed the former as it failed to recognise the C/P ‘adverse current’ parameter and the latter as Charterers’ survey was inconclusive. Charterers’ contention that  it was underperformance which caused Owners to incur regulatory costs under incorporated BIMCO emissions clauses (thus relieving Charterers from any reimbursement obligation) failed for the same reason.

Read the full judgment here.

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.