A T/C provided that Charterers were to redeliver the Vessel with “about” the same quantities of bunkers as on delivery and “should…difference….exceed 5%, Charterers shall compensate Owners losses …”.Charterers redelivered with some 13% less FO and 50% less MGO than on delivery.  The Owners claimed as damages the market rates for the entire shortfalls, contending that the 5% allowance was not applicable if exceeded. The Tribunal held that within 5% gave rise to no breach and only awarded damages for the net shortfalls.

Arbitrators rejected Time Charterers’ Weather Routing Company (WRC) performance analysis as it departed from the C/P parameters including as to swell and significant wave height (attributing 2m to DSS3) and failed to recognise routine navigational alterations, casting doubt on reliability generally. However, they found Owners in breach due to Vessel’s hull and propeller fouling, affecting performance and entitling Charterers to deduct for damages (albeit in a lesser amount than pursuant to their WRC analysis).

Under a T/C, delays in berthing followed the Vessel’s grounding at her Mississippi River anchorage. With no berthing prospects in sight, and fearing another grounding, (but against advice of the local Pilots association), the Master shifted the Vessel to a 2nd anchorage where, as warned against, the Vessel swung 360◦ requiring her anchors to be disentangled with tug and pilot assistance. The Tribunal found (i) that although the first anchorage was safe for the Vessel, Charterers were nonetheless in breach of their ‘always afloat’ warranty and (ii) the Master’s choice was not unreasonable but the 2nd anchorage was unsafe, placing Charterers in breach of their warranty. Owners’ claims for the costs of re-floating, shifting, re-anchoring and disentangling the anchors succeeded, as did their claim for withheld hire during the delayed berthing (even that part of the delay caused by the Master’s late action to disentangle anchors).

When the Vessel’s master fell ill and subsequently died, the Panama Canal Authority cancelled the pre-booked transit and placed the Vessel “on hold” pending production of contemporaneous negative Covid-19 PCR tests of crew/officers. Under the NYPE C/P, Charterers held the vessel off-hire from arrival until transit. Rejecting the claim, the Tribunal found that the situation did not fall within Cl.15 “any other cause” (there was no “whatsoever”). Nor within various additional clauses including “Off-hire” due to “threatened detention by any authority” – there was no detention as such; nor “Certificates and Vaccinations” - relating to advance certificates rather than transitory PCR tests; nor a “Panama…Canal” clause, relating only to Vessel fittings and suitability for transit.

Under a T/C with maximum duration to mid-December 2019, Charterers redelivered late, in February 2020, with 165 MT HSFO (by then out-lawed by the IMO fuel regulations in force 1.1.20). Owners claimed in respect of post-redelivery time and cost of a trip to de-bunker, relying on cl. 10, which set out a sliding scale of permitted redelivery HSFO quantities to be endeavoured. The Tribunal dismissed Owners’ claims based on cl.10 (due to its non-mandatory nature) and on an implied term requiring zero ‘un-burnable’ ROB after 31.12.19 (as the situation was contemplated by neither party). However, ruling that rate differential was not the only measure of late-redelivery damages, the Tribunal held that cl.10 meant that de-bunkering was within the contemplation of the parties and resulting expenditure recoverable by Owners.

Following an unpaid Judgment for damages for wrongful arrest of the vessel ‘Captain Silver’, the Claimants took enforcement steps, including an Asset Disclosure Order (ADO), which was disobeyed, resulting in a Contempt of Court ruling, a £100,000 fine on AGR (unpaid) and a 12-month Committal Order on its general manager, Mr AG. The latter applied to discharge the Committal Order on the grounds that whilst he was willing to comply with the ADO, he had no authority to do so because his co-signatories withheld consent. The Court declined: the Committal Order could not be discharged whilst the underlying Contempt remained and there were insufficient grounds to ‘purge’ the Contempt. Mr AG had failed to take adequate steps to obtain co-signatories’ support, and he could have at least partially complied with the ADO. Should he do so in future purging might be possible.