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 laden “Happy Aras” grounded off Turkey causing damage to ship and cargo. A subsequent GA Adjustment found cargo’s contribution to be some USD1.2m, which Owners sought from the Defendant Average Guarantors. The Court found that the Master made multiple serious errors on the voyage, removed safety checks and kept misleading records, constituting systemic failings and unseaworthiness. Owners failed to show proper research before assigning command to the Master and could not demonstrate the necessary due diligence in compliance with the B/L and applicable Hague Rules. Consequently their claim under the Average Guarantee failed.

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.