Voyage Charterers requested the vessel to wait off the discharge port for some 6 days (after NOR tendered). Owners claimed damages for detention and bunker cost – not demurrage – arguing that the request took matters outside the scope of the C/P. The Tribunal held that the request was not “manifestly outside” the contract, laytime ran and Charterers were entitled to all of it. As neither party had put forward a demurrage basis the (SCP) Tribunal made its own assessment.

“The Tribunal held that, notwithstanding expiry of 24 months from delivery of the cargo, Time charterer's iCA claim against Owners was not time barred by paragraph 6 of the iCA. Charterers had informed Owners by various emails of the merchant's intended cargo claim — water damage due to the vessel's crew negligence -despite not being able to substantiate the details required by the paragraph, such as "the contract of carriage, the nature of the claim and the amount claimed". However, the Tribunal found that paragraph 6 simply required a "written notification of the cargo claim" for the validity of the recovery and the obligation of providing details — characterised by the words If possible — did not give rise to the barring sanction. Therefore, while the absence of any written notification would bar the recovery claim, the absence of details in relation to it would be of no effect.”

“A fixture agreed by an exchange of emails concluded "owise as dean Gencon94 CP ind Cls Paramount...to be amended/ altered as per above main terms agreed...". The Tribunal, ruling on its own jurisdiction, found that the Gencon 94 Arbitration Clause (19(a)) was incorporated in the fixture: there was no established meaning of "main terms" therefore no reason to exclude Gencon provisions which might be regarded as "main° just because not specifically agreed in the main terms recap, regardless of the amount of detail.”

“Having paid a 2006 cargo claim as ordered by appellate Brazilian Courts in 2017, Owners claimed indemnity from Charterers under Clause 10 of an amended GENCON Form. Charterers argued that by then the claim had become time-barred. The tribunal held by majority that the obligation of Charterers to indemnify Owners against "all consequences or liabilities" meant that time started running from payment of the cargo claim which was the consequence of signing bills more onerous than the terms of the Charterparty.”

“Charterers brought an underperformance claim under an amended NYPE form c/p in reliance on a weather bureau report. Clause 77 provided that "evidence of the weather conditions to be taken as reported daily on the noon position report to the Charterers...". The Tribunal found that the weather bureau's approach, which divided the 24-hour period in four 6-hourly readings, was contrary to the c/p performance warranty. A period of less than a full day was insufficient in order to calculate the vessel's performance and in particular unjustly benefitted Charterers as no accurate allowance was made for currents during periods between the six-hourly entries. Therefore, Owners were entitled to a refund of Charterers' deduction from hire.”

“Charterers made a deduction from hire on the grounds of an underperformance claim under a cp on a NYPE 1993 form. The Tribunal found that the deduction was unlawful as it constituted a breach of clause 46 of the cp, pursuant to which "Charterers are entitled to deduct from last sufficient hire payments only value of bunkers on redelivery...". Charterers' argument that the clause dealt only with bunkers adjustments but did not preclude equitable set-off of performance claims was rejected. In fact, it was held that the purpose of the clause was to protect Owners from possible iniquitous ad hoc deductions disguised as equitable set off and if Charterers had a performance claim, they should have claimed damages independently.”