Singapore Arbitration 2/18 [(2018) 1008 LMLN 4] probably does not greatly develop the law or offer novel interpretation of common fixture wording. It does however illustrate some of the less familiar demurrage and also DA disputes that arise, and the wider problems that can result. 
A heavily redacted account reveals only that under an amended GENCON 94 form the vessel was chartered to carry bulk iron briquettes which were loaded at a river port, and that disputes arose as outlined below and decided under agreed Singapore (SCMA) Arbitration and English law. 
These were a miscellany concerning (a) what disport time counted for first opening the hatches (b) whether owners delayed cargo operations there by not providing a written undertaking to the port authority (c) liability for loadport pilotage and other amounts and (d) whether charterers should indemnify owners for resulting losses. 
Opening hatches 
Charterparties often provide for who pays for the time taken to open and/or close hatches, and here an additional clause said: 
But the disport agent’s SOF simply recorded an aggregate 50 minutes for this and other activities. There was no evidence of how long it took just to open the hatches. Owners said it was five minutes and charterers urged an hour. However, following a London Arbitration Award in 2002, the Tribunal refused to entertain theory or estimate and ruled that it was for charterers to prove the claimed deduction. As they could not, the whole disputed period counted as laytime. 
The strictness of this is highlighted by the facts that (i) it must have taken at least some time to open multiple hatches (ii) owners were anyway given countervailing credit within a far longer, unclaimed period (where time would have counted for them) for a similar mix of activity, but where there was likewise no evidence of how long the hatch opening took. 
Delay for lack of undertaking 
Before allowing the vessel to berth the disport authorities had demanded their standard undertaking as to damages. Charterers sought to deduct about 25.5 hours, alleging that owners’ delay in providing that had hampered cargo operations. 
With nothing in the fixture to cover these circumstances, charterers had to show that owners’ culpable delay had prevented the vessel from berthing and this had the legal effect of interrupting laytime. In essence they had to show that the vessel was unavailable for cargo operations due to owners’ fault. 
Charterers failed because: 
1. owners did not have to provide the undertaking - it was anyway largely a formality and something from charterers themselves would have done; moreover 
2. charterers had not given owners reasonable notice; and 
3. the vessel could not have berthed at the time as the designated berth was occupied. 
Pilotage and other amounts 
Loadport disbursements were for owners’ account up to a maximum based on $4 per tonne of cargo shipped, with charterers paying anything above that, failing which owners could clause the Bs/L accordingly. 
Amid a wider dispute on loadport sums, and after the vessel had sailed, charterers undertook to pay the loadport agent whatever was due and owners then released the (presumably non claused) Bs/L. However, charterers later generally denied liability and alleged that the Master had ordered additional pilotage which owners should pay for. 
The Tribunal rejected that and ruled that charterers had breached both their obligation and their undertaking to pay their share of the loadport DA, which included pilotage, none of which was additional or otherwise for owners alone. 
Indemnity for resulting claims 
Because of charterers’ failure to settle the account, the loadport agent had threatened to bar owners from the relevant port and perhaps others nearby. 
Owners sought an indemnity from charterers for any resulting losses and the Tribunal agreed, ordering charterers to indemnify owners in respect of whatever loss and damage they may incur due to charterers’ failure to make these payments, and as regards any such payments made by owners. 
As well as underlining the importance of accurate contemporary records, even for something as routine as opening hatches, this Award shows that demurrage issues can arise when charterers seek to divert formal operational responsibilities to owners, and (where possible) wording agreed in advance should address this. 
Also, care must be taken with charterers’ liabilities, to owners or otherwise. A proposed undertaking in return for release of the Bs/L or other waiver should always be examined and considered carefully, as later default could mean difficulty with third parties. 
If you would like to discuss any point or topic in this article please contact 
Share this post:

Leave a comment: 

Our site uses cookies. For more information, see our cookie policy. Accept cookies and close
Reject cookies Manage settings