| Archives: May 2013

Award 1205 – C/P Orevoy – Hatch cover damaged during discharging – Provisional repairs followed two years later by definitive repairs in China – Charterer’s liability (yes). Having paid for provisional repairs which were considered to be unsatisfactory, survey fees and demurrage due to the disponent owner, the Charterer refused to indemnify the disponent owner, the time charterer of the vessel, for payment made by the time charterer to the ship owner for the final repairs carried out in China to the satisfaction of the classification society. In view of the clauses of the voyage charter, the arbitral Tribunal decided that expenses linked to the repair of the hatch cover paid by the disponent owner or reimbursed by him to the shipowner were to be borne by the Charterer. However, some invoices, which were considered to be exaggerated, were lowered and the additional expenses paid by the ship owner were rejected as being outside the scope of the voyage charter.

Award 1206 – C/P Orevoy – Hatch cover damaged during discharging – Provisional repairs followed two years later by definitive repairs in China. Claim from charterer to the disponent owner to be refunded of part of the cost of provisional repairs and demurrage. Repairs carried out by a ship repairer, chosen by the charterer with the agreement of the ship manager, we refoundtobe unsatisfactory. An official survey report pointed out the unsatisfactory nature of the repairs. In the end, the hatch cover manufacturer ordered some provisional repairs in order to allow the vessel’s departure but with class certificates including a recommendation to perform definitive repairs at a later stage. Once these were carried out, the charterer reverted to the facts which had occurred during the call and claimed reimbursement from the disponent owner for the repairs carried out according to the advice of the hatch cover manufacturer as well as demurrage incurred after the end of the first repair. Although pointing out the disponent owner’s lack of cooperation, the arbitral Tribunal decided the charterer remained liable for the hatch cover repairs and corresponding expenses. However, time lost due to the inaction of the disponent owner was to be refunded.

Award 1203 – Alleged collision of a long cable towed by a seismic survey vessel with a containership – Referral to CAMP by virtue of a letter of undertaking – Involvement of the container ship (yes ) – Liability (unproved). The principle which rules liability related to collision compels the claimant to prove, firstly, the cause of the accident, and, secondly, that the fault is attributable to the defendant vessel. Although challenged by the Master and the ship owner, the Tribunal considered that there was a body of corresponding evidence which established the containership involvement in the collision. However, her liability could not be decided as it was not proven that the vessel had to have a preliminary knowledge of a cable under tow of 6,300 metres and that a proper look out would have allowed the vessel’s crew to identify without doubt the operation being carried out by the survey vessel.

Award 1204 – Synacomex 90 – Political unrest in Egypt – Berthing delayed – Dispute on laytime calculation at discharging – Validity of notice of readiness tendered on roads (yes) – Application of clause 25 (no).On the day of her arrival at Damietta, the vessel dropped anchor in the inner anchorage where samples were taken, then was ordered to go on outer roads and came alongside only 9 days later. The dispute hinged on the validity of NOR tendered on roads and the laytime calculation during waiting time. The charterer put forward the statement of facts which mentioned a situation of political unrest and curfew when the owner referred to the Master’s remarks pointing out that the port remained open and active. The Tribunal decided that the NOR had been validly tendered on the roads since sampling was not dealt with in the charterparty and that no reason why the vessel did not go alongside on arrival was given. On the matter of laytime, it considered that clause 25 of charter-party, regarding the except ions to layt ime calculation, should be construed strictly and that the lack of official documentation about the state of the port during the waiting time did not allow for its application.