Time Charterers under an amended NYPE deducted for underperformance, relying on their weather routing company’s (WRC) report. One C/P clause contained performance criteria and good weather benchmarks, another the sources of weather data, namely Vessel log and WRC. The Tribunal found the WRC had not adhered to the benchmarks when assessing a period of some 48 hours as good weather because (i) the WRC’s ‘current factor’ netted adverse and favourable currents – and the latter should not be taken into account; and (ii) the WRC’s combined significant wave height data made it impossible to assess swell direction. Even though the Tribunal found that the log exaggerated sea and swell, and the WRC report was reliably sourced, the latter was not in compliance with the C/P and was therefore not valid as a resolution of the underperformance claim, causing Charterers’ claim to fail.

When the vessel, chartered on a NYPE form cp, arrived at loadport, her whole crew were tested because the third engineer had presented covid symptoms. In the end only the bosun tested positive so the port authorities ordered a 14-day quarantine. Owners claimed some US$ 275k balance of hire but charterers held the vessel off-hire from arrival at loadport to the end of quarantine. Owners relied on Clause 114 pursuant to which in the specific case of loss of time due to quarantine procedures to combat avian influenza, the vessel would not be off-hire. Charterers relied on the exclusion in the same clause, for which Owners would bear the loss of time and related costs if arising “as a direct consequence of the vessel’s or officers/crew’s history prior to delivery”. The Tribunal found that quarantine would have not been ordered had the bosun not tested positive, so it did not arise as a consequence of events prior to delivery. Owners’ claim thus succeeded.

Pursuant to a supply contract, Claimants supplied bunkers, ordered by Time Charterers (D1) to a Vessel and, being unpaid, commenced arbitration for the invoiced amount, against (D1) and Disponent Owners, who subsequently became bareboat charterers, (D2) . The Tribunal found that the contract definition of ‘Buyer’ was wide enough to cover Ds 1 and 2 and that a clause creating a maritime lien pursuant to US law, created one applicable outside the US, and which attached prior to D2’s acquisition of its interest. The Tribunal found Ds1 and 2 jointly and severally liable for the invoiced amount, interest and costs.

An “Uplift Term” was agreed in c/p (NYPE) under which Owners would supply an additional 200-300 mt delivery bunkers, against increased hire. Owners subsequently supplied 195 mt. Charterers sought a declaration that the minimum quantity had not been supplied and the “Uplift Term” not triggered, whilst Owners argued the “Additional Requirements” clause (defining “abt” as +/- 5%) was applicable. The Tribunal agreed with Owners; the parties intended “abt” to qualify all bunker quantities, its omission a clear mistake the Tribunal had power to correct, and its inclusion necessary for business efficacy.

Further to an electrical breakdown, Time-Charterers first placed the Vessel off-hire, and then terminated the Charterparty (with cargo on board), relying on the C/P cancellation clause and a repudiatory breach. Whilst the breakdown inferred breach of delivery condition, the Tribunal held it was not repudiatory; nor had Charterers complied with cancellation clause notice requirements. Until the Vessel proceeded to the discharge port and delivered the cargo, she was not at Owners’ disposal and not redelivered; the C/P remained live but the vessel was, however, off-hire from the moment she could not follow Charterers’ orders until commencement of discharge.

Multiple cargo Claimants, claiming cargo damage and short delivery under 14 B/Ls, alleged the cargo had been sold prior discharge to two of their number, who, as B/L holders had obtained title to sue pursuant to s.2(2)(a) of COGSA 1992. Shipowners put the Claimants to strict proof, from the outset, to evidence all endorsements and B/Ls movements, and that the cargo had not been sold onwards. The Tribunal placed little weight on witness evidence from the alleged cargo seller, nor on letters from the two Claimants confirming receipt of B/Ls and no onwards sale (produced some 4 years later). Contemporaneous material from the Claimants themselves was crucial – and absent. The Claimants had not established title to sue and their claim was dismissed.