Owners claimed a balance of T/C hire in an LMAA SCP arbitration. Charterers counterclaimed in respect of underperformance, but Owners argued that the counterclaim was not advanced within the mandatory time frame of Paragraph 5(g) of the SCP, obliging the Tribunal to shut it out. The Tribunal ruled that 5(g) was not a barring provision but nonetheless it could not adjudicate the counterclaim, as the T/C provided that in the event of a speed and consumption dispute, performance was to be analysed by “a mutually agreed weather routing company …whose findings will be final and binding” - which was absent. Owners were awarded their balance of hire claim (with some adjustments) and costs, but the Tribunal reserved jurisdiction to deal with Charterers’ counterclaim in the future, if advanced with a qualifying weather routing company analysis.

A T/C clause provided for underwater cleaning (necessitated by Charterers’ trading) to be done “at first workable opportunity and always at Charterers’ time and expense”. The Court on a s.69 appeal upheld the Tribunal’s ruling that post-redelivery cleaning time was reimbursable, and at the T/C rate (without Owners having to prove loss of time and damages suffered).

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.