The main parts of a laden charterparty transit are the carrying voyage and the discharge. Owners take the cost risk of the first of these and (with aggregate laytime for all cargo operations) the second is charterers’ concern. To see who pays for what, the parties must identify when one ends and the other begins, and to signpost this the parties use NOR and agree restrictions on how, when and where that may be given. 
 
The related notions of port or berth charterparties, an arrived ship and WIPON and other such shorthands all concern who pays when a vessel is delayed by congestion in reaching the berth, and the straightforward London Arbitration 16/18 [(2018) 1007 LMLN 3] prompts this quick review. 
Demurrage can be extensive and is usually unsecured, and if charterers default owners will look elsewhere. Rights of lien often mean trouble, and it is sometimes better to target a solvent alternative. The recent decision in Sea Master Shipping v Arab Bank (Switzerland) Limited [2018] EWHC 1902 (Comm) (the “SEA MASTER”) brings trade financing banks into focus. 
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. 
As we outlined on 24 March, in Lukoil v Ocean Tankers ([2018] EWHC 163 (Comm)) charterers successfully identified a claim as demurrage, thus time-barring it under a standard clause. The 23 April decision in Glencore Energy v OMV ([2018] EWHC 895 (Comm)) involved a similar approach, but this time the claimant prevailed under a rarely used legal structure. The dispute concerned a sale contact but could easily have arisen under a charterparty. 
With charterparty chain issues a regular theme, judicial resistance to Arbitration appeals a traditional one and examination of post breach events an emerging one, this decision in ST Shipping & Transport Pte Ltd v Space Shipping Ltd (The "CV Stealth") (No.2) [2018] is an example of all three. 
In an appeal from a 2017 Award, the 26 March ruling in Seatrade Group NV v Hakan Agro DMCC (The “Aconcagua Bay”) 2018 is the first English High Court decision on an important question. 
In a rare appeal from an Arbitration Award, Lukoil Asia Pacific Pte Limited v Ocean Tankers (Pte) Limited [2018] EWHC 163 (Comm) (the “OCEAN NEPTUNE”) is an example of a dispute over the exact nature of a claim, and highlights other issues around time bars. 
London Arbitration 3/18 [(2018) 995 LMLN 1] is a compact and varied package containing the notorious issue of a time bar, the familiar topics of repudiation, NOR validity and damages when a fixture is not performed, and a rare attempt to argue contract affirmation. It is unusual to find so much in one place. 
London Arbitration 27/17 [(2017) 987 LMLN 4] is a straightforward time calculation amid a routine shortlanding claim. It is also an illustration of the meshed trinity of charter party, bill of lading and sales contract, with demurrage often a common thread. 
Our site uses cookies. For more information, see our cookie policy. Accept cookies and close
Reject cookies Manage settings