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.

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.