In the arbitration reported last week, Owners had alleged several breaches by Time Charterers and claimed USD160,000 resulting damages for a ‘lost fixture’, plus an alleged crew – war risk area – bonus.  The Tribunal had dismissed the latter and awarded damages only on the basis and in the (substantially smaller) amount admitted (and part-paid) by Charterers. Owners as ‘successful’ party sought 100% of their costs. The Tribunal took into account that Owners had failed to support claims promptly or at all; that Charterers correctly foresaw the outcome and made a WP offer accordingly, which indicated goodwill, although they failed to include interest or any costs.  The Tribunal ruled that Charterers bear their own costs and just 40% of Owners’ recoverable costs, from which the Tribunal excluded pre-action costs of general investigation not reflected in the arbitration claim.

Under an ongoing T/C trip Owners claimed and commenced arbitration for a USD3m balance of hire. Some 3 weeks later, the parties entered a T/C addendum resolving the disputes to date upon payment of USD1m by Charterers. Owners contended that the addendum was unenforceable for want of consideration. Charterers responded that the settlement of accrued disputes, including the relinquishment of their own claims, was the consideration. The Tribunal found that the addendum was valid and enforceable. Nevertheless, as Charterers failed to pay some US$200k subsequently accruing in respect of delay in berthing (as per invoice dated 4 weeks post addendum), the Tribunal agreed with Owners that such failure amounted to repudiatory breach of the addendum, which therefore fell away, leaving Owners’ rights those provided in the T/C, so their original claim succeed.

Under an ongoing T/C trip Owners claimed and commenced arbitration for a USD3m balance of hire. Some 3 weeks later, the parties entered a T/C addendum resolving the disputes to date upon payment of USD1m by Charterers. Owners contended that the addendum was unenforceable for want of consideration. Charterers responded that the settlement of accrued disputes, including the relinquishment of their own claims, was the consideration. The Tribunal found that the addendum was valid and enforceable. Nevertheless, as Charterers failed to pay some US$200k subsequently accruing in respect of delay in berthing (as per invoice dated 4 weeks post addendum), the Tribunal agreed with Owners that such failure amounted to repudiatory breach of the addendum, which therefore fell away, leaving Owners’ rights those provided in the T/C, so their original claim succeed.

After a voyage-chartered Vessel suffered a breakdown, repairs extended the transit by some 5 months during which size restrictions at the discharge port changed, causing a change of destination and delays in receivers making arrangements. Allowing Owners’ resulting demurrage claim, the Tribunal found no grounds for unseaworthiness at the beginning of the voyage, nor were the repairs unduly delayed (given the pandemic). The NOR was valid, laytime expired and the demurrage claim was payable. Consequential loss of time was not recoverable under the Owners’ fault basis.

A single message from Time Charterers (who were allegedly unpaid by sub-charterers) to Owners "Owners... decision not to discharge... to protect owners and charterers interests may be... prudent" was held not to amount to an instruction to Owners not to discharge the cargo. Nor did the B/L (under which Owners undertook to deliver the cargo) contain any lien entitling Time Charterers to give any such instruction. Time Charterers' damages claim failed.

Rhine as Disponent Owners voyage chartered a vessel to Vitol. Third parties arrested Rhine’s bunkers and property on board at the first load port. In the ensuing delay, claimed Vitol, the price payable by them for the second load port cargo increased, causing them loss of some USD3.7m, for which they sought damages. The Court found Rhine in breach of the CP warranty: “…Vessel, Owners….disponent owners are free of any encumbrances….that may affect performance…”; and that the “Third Party Arrest” clause: “…in the event of arrest…levied against the vessel….Owner shall indemnify Charterer for any damages…” was activated. In awarding Vitol the damages sought, the Court ruled that price fluctuation was within the contemplation of the parties and that in any event the rules of remoteness did not apply to the indemnity.