“A charterparty for the carriage of logs contained a clause, 66, which made the tendering of NOR at loadport conditional on Owners' promise that "...the Vessel's holds will be clean, dry and free of cargo residues...". Upon arrival at loadport the vessel's holds were found to be infested and the authorities ordered fumigation. Although Owners contended that infestation was not contemplated by clause 66, the Tribunal held the NOR invalid as the presence of insects was in any event a breach of the duty under common law regarding the condition of the holds and the vessel was not ready until fumigation had been completed.”

“Under a time charterparty on amended NYPE 1946 form, the vessel failed the hose test on her arrival to loadport and was placed off hire. Owners claimed hire submitting that the hose test that took place was too stringent and uncontractual, i.e. far in excess of standard practice in the industry. The Tribunal held that it was not possible to conclude that the hose test was not carried out in accordance with the IACS guidelines as there was no reason for the surveyor to do so nor was it credible that the crew should accede to a request to carry out an irregular test without lodging a formal note of protest. The claim therefore failed.”

“In an SOP time charter arbitration, the Tribunal found that Charterers were correct to rely on the Master's delivery and redelivery bunker figures rather than the vessel's calculated consumption, as the Owners had argued.”

“A NOR was held to be valid even though the ship was not in a condition to perform the service required when it was tendered. The Tribunal found that the lack of a second anchor, required for river navigation, was not critical since a substitute tug could be ordered instead. The NOR tendered was therefore valid even though the Owners refused to deploy the tug as they considered it was "too expensive".”

“Under an amended Synacomex 90 c/p, an NOR was valid (by reason of c1.8 and 'WIPON') when served at the designated location (even if outside port limits), the intended loading place then being unavailable and the Master having warranted hold readiness. Subsequent hold inspection failure did not invalidate the NOR (as in the Mexico I) because the c/p specified the laytime effects of hold failure.”

“A LMAA tribunal set a time for charterers' defence "on a peremptory basis" (10 weeks after service of the claim, both the 28-day period and an extension set by order having expired). The tribunal declined charterers' application to be allowed to serve their defence and counterclaim late, rejecting charterers' complaint that the Tribunal had not specified, when making the peremptory order, which of the 4 possible sanctions it would adopt (under s.41 (7) Arbitration Act), pointing to the 'norm' being an award, and indicating that it was not open to the Tribunal to review a peremptory deadline, once it had passed. Nor did the refusal amount to dismissal of the counterclaim — this could not occur without the counterclaim having been brought in the first place.”