X supplied Owners with bunkers which had been purchased from its subsidiary Y under a sale contract. Y in turn had bought those bunkers from the Supplier who, fearing Y’s failure to pay, obtained payment from Owners directly. Owners subsequently resisted X’s claim for payment of the price and pleaded “failure of consideration” as the sale contract between X and Y limited consumption to X’s own vessel prior to payment. The Tribunal found that the remittance to the Supplier did not release Owners from their payment obligation to X nor did they have any right to set-off. Owners’ defence of failure of consideration also failed as the definition of “Buyer” in the sale contract included the “vessel supplied”, thus Owners had acquired the right to use the bunkers.

Pilots in China refused Master’s request to have their temperatures re-checked, and standoff ensued which was only resolved more than a week later. Time Charterers (NYPE) claimed off-hire either due to “default of officers or crew” or for the crew’s refusal to do their duties, or alternatively, Owners were in breach for failing to follow Charterers’ orders. The Tribunal held there was no “default of officers or crew” nor had the crew refused their duties by implementing company policy. However, by unilaterally imposing conditions on the pilots, Owners had failed to follow Charterers’ legitimate “orders and directions”. Charterers were awarded hire and bunkers for time lost as damages.

Time Charterers relied on vessel underperformance and withheld final hire. Owners claimed that the deduction was not made in good faith or on reasonable grounds. The Tribunal dismissed Charterers' reliance on a weather routing report, and held Charterers had failed to address the question of good faith, to substantiate their off-hire claim, and to address Owners’ assertion there was no speed/consumption warranty (the fixture containing the words “all details about/in good faith”). Owners were entitled to payment.

Owners disputed Charterers’ renomination of one of the two discharge ports qualifying for additional freight, arguing that the first nomination was final. Charterers contended that changes were reasonable and foreseeable as ports were declarable “10 DAYS PRIOR VSL PASSING SINGAPORE” and that Owners were not entitled to extra freight due to failure of consideration (as they failed to perform the contractually nominated voyage). The Tribunal found no provisions in the cp which (i) authorised renomination – thus the first nomination was held final – or (ii) obliged Owners to relinquish the extra freight in case of failure to perform the nominated voyage.

Under an amended NYPE 1981, Owners claimed damages for a shortfall in redelivery bunkers, based on the redelivery place price and making just a 2% allowance for ‘about’ (as Charterers had ample warning and opportunity to replenish). Charterers contended that the Vessel had insufficient tank capacity for stemming at their chosen place, and that Owners had not in fact replenished at the redelivery place. The Tribunal found the usual 5% allowance appropriate but otherwise dismissed Charterers’ arguments: there was no warranty of tank capacity and the redelivery port price – not the C/P one – applied to damages, irrespective of where replenishment happened.

Owners’ demurrage claim was based on time running from the first NOR, which was tendered at Southwest Pass when congestion prevented berthing at UBT Davant. The C/P Recap provided that a valid NOR could be given “at or off the port…WWWW” (whether or not at berth, in port, customs cleared or free pratique). However, the Recap also incorporated the UBT (United Bulk Terminal) rules. Charterers relied on the latter, which set out preconditions for a valid NOR including that vessel was at “berth or closest available anchorage”. The Tribunal held that the conflicting terms in the incorporated document (UBT rules) gave way to those in the primary agreement (Recap) and that the Southwest Pass was the nearest anchorage for waiting and vessel was “off the port”. Consequently, the first NOR was valid and Owners’ demurrage claim successful.