Case Summaries
London Arbitration 18/26
The dispute concerned a voyage charterparty arbitration clause requiring arbitrators to be “commercial men and no lawyers”. The disponent owner challenged the charterer’s nominated arbitrator, a non-practising former solicitor, as ineligible due to their legal background. The third arbitrator upheld the challenge, interpreting the clause as excluding former lawyers whose experience was acquired in the legal field, even if they were no longer practising. The challenge succeeded, with the disponent owner entitled to its recoverable assets.
London Arbitration 12/26
Under the Asbatankvoy C/P for the carriage of oil from ‘ARA’, in the event Rotterdam, to Spanish Atlantic/Mediterranean, Charterers ordered the Vessel to load at Rotterdam and discharge part of the cargo at Bilbao, thereafter to the La Coruna anchorage to await further orders, which the Vessel did for over 31 days, effectively providing floating storage pending decisions on further discharge, the Tribunal held. Owners claimed and were awarded damages of just over USD1m (at the C/P demurrage rate) for the detention off La Coruna but were refused the cost of bunkers thereby consumed as these were encompassed in the demurrage rate.
Read the full judgement here
London Arbitration 14/26
Under a T/C trip, Charterers, having stemmed bunkers, failed to pay the supplier, who then arrested the Vessel at the discharge port; Owners’ P&I first secured and then paid the supplier’s claim, plus costs. Charterers contested any C/P liability to reimburse Owners but the Tribunal disagreed, finding that a ‘non lien’ clause in the pro forma C/P had been incorporated into the present C/P and rendered Charterers liable. The Tribunal also dismissed Charterers’ underperformance claim as the 4 days complained of was the period of the supplier’s arrest.
London Arbitration 15/26
Charterers relied on their WRC report (based on broad satellite data) to support their speed and consumption claim based on 24 hours ‘good weather’ as required and defined in the C/P. Owners contested this on the basis of a screenshot from the Vessel’s ECDIS (recording actual route conditions). The Tribunal disregarded the latter, as it covered insufficient time, but nonetheless dismissed Charterers’ claim as their sole evidence, the WRC report, itself showed adverse currents, albeit for sub-periods of the 24 hours.
Read the full judgement here
London Arbitration 13/26
The charterers were held liable for hull damage caused by the stevedores’ barge, in circumstances where Clause 8 of the NYPE 1993 charterparty placed responsibility for cargo operations upon the charterers, and clause 35 provided that charterers should pay for stevedore damage. However, the owners’ damages were reduced substantially because they failed to prove post-redelivery loss of use.
Read the full judgement here
London Arbitration (2026) 1217 LMLN 2
Owners of a Vessel chartered on the Vegilvoy form to carry a cargo to a North African port, obtained an urgent Arbitration Award after waiting off such a port, as instructed, cargo sale arrangements having foundered. On the basis of Vessel operational issues (sludge tanks full, Class certificates imminent expiry, shortages of fresh water and provisions, and loss of forward fixtures) the Tribunal ruled (based on the Vegilvoy “Liberty Clause”) that Owners could instead discharge at such safe port (including in another country) as they chose, with cargo remaining in their possession pending delivery to persons entitled, Charterers being liable for all loss, damage and expense caused to Owners by reason of their failure to take delivery.