Demurrage disputes mostly involve contests on the validity of tender of NOR, consideration of an SOF, exceptions to time counting, WWDs, WIPON, WIBON and so on, force majeure, and wrangles over claims - and the adequacy of supporting documents - within deadlines set by completion of discharge.
It is notorious that voyage charterparties bar demurrage claims unless presented, with the necessary documents, within a set time after completion of discharge. This is to allow issues to be investigated before recollections fade and the trail goes cold.
London Arbitration 22/19 [(2019) 1040 LMLN 1] involved a log carrier chartered for a part cargo. Owners agreed to change the original disport in return for increased freight, and later claimed about $89,000. Charterers countered for over $55,000, and demurrage was central amid many issues arising from a seeming straightforward fixture.
Bad weather, and the threat of it, is certainly topical. We briefly discussed this in our post of 7 June, it was highly newsworthy recently and it came up again in London Arbitration 21/19 [(2019) 1039 LMLN 1]. There, with about $321,000 at stake, the Tribunal discussed the distinction between actual and approaching bad weather, and considered the meaning of “attributable” in common exclusion wording.
Our title here is the common misconstruction of “anchor aweigh”, but it is appropriate for London Arbitration 16/19 [(2019) 1037 LMLN 3], which concerned a vessel that tendered NOR with one of its anchors missing.