In this relatively recent arbitration under an amended Exxon Mobil VOY2005 form, disputes arose concerning the Owners' claim for the cost of bunkers, a liability which the Charterers denied.
The central issue in the dispute pertained to the interpretation of the phrase "extra expenses and bunkers consumed," which appeared in the "waiting for orders" clause. The Owners submitted a claim for the time spent and the bunkers consumed during the waiting period. The Charterers, however, contended that the demurrage rate already included an allowance for bunkers and that "extra" referred to something beyond the standard consumption of bunkers during idling. The Owners, in contrast, argued that the term "extra" in the phrase applied only to expenses and not to bunkers.
The tribunal found in favor of the Charterers, concluding that, as a matter of principle, the Owners could not claim the cost of idle bunkers when compensated for detention at the agreed demurrage rate (The Eternal Bliss considered). Regarding the Owners' interpretation of "extra," the tribunal was not convinced and held that "extra" applied both to expenses and bunkers.
Observations
Another potential issue that arises in practice is whether the Master’s statement alone is sufficient to substantiate the claim for the bunkers consumed during various stages of the voyage ( sailing, waiting for orders, calling at an intermediate port, etc). As this constitutes a claim for reimbursement, the Charterer may have the right to request additional customary documentation, such as engine logs or printouts from the integrated automation system, among others.
Editors' note: no other information can be provided for this London Arbitration Award.
The featured image on the post is indicative and not the vessel involved in this arbitration.