Deviation
Arbitrators found Owners liable for extra costs in deviating the Azores to lift bunkers as the Master concluded whilst on a voyage that the fuel on board was not sufficient to perform the voyage. On appeal, Neill J held that the arbitrators found that there was an insufficiency of fuel; they decided that that amounted to a breach of cl. 1 of the charter and this was not a case which should be set aside or remitted; the motion would be dismissed. There were various scenarios argued about the excess consumption: First, some incompetent management by the engineers. Secondly, a defect in the fuel itself, or some special call on the fuel, and thirdly, a mechanical defect in the engine. Having rejected various theories the arbitrators concluded that the vessel had insufficient fuel to make the west-bound crossing.
The Marina Di Cassano [1984] 2 Lloyds’ Rep 577
_______________________
Burden of proof is on charterers to prove cause of delay for which they claim Offhire; having failed to do so, ship did not go Offhire during move than 3 day call at a port for bunkering.
SMA 2331
_______________________
Under a charter party containing the Sun Diversion Clause, charterer was liable for the time lost, bunkers consumed, and port disbursements expended by owner in bunkering necessitated by a change of orders, where the subsequently nominated discharge port was not reasonably within the scope of the original voyage orders, and the vessel sailed with sufficient bunkers to reach any port within the scope of those orders.
_______________________
Even though the charterers insisted the vessel proceed, despite the rough weather, without deviation for fuel, the vessel should not have been put off-hire during the time taken to put in port and obtain the additional fuel only possibly needed to reach the discharging port and satisfy the redelivery conditions of the charter, save for the short extra time taken in bunkering with more fuel than was necessary. The master, being responsible for the threats posed by the bad weather was the sole and best judge of the urgency of the situation and the reasonableness of the decision.
LMLN 137
_______________________
The sailing from port with insufficient fuel to reach the vessel's destination and thereby causing a diversion for bunkering was held to constitute gross negligence on the Owner's part.
SMA 1471
_______________________
Since charterers impliedly waived their rights to object to the vessel's increase of fuel consumption and decrease in speed, the unscheduled call of the vessel at an intermediate port for necessary bunkers did not put the ship off hire and charterers must pay for the port expenses at the bunkering port
JSEB #1
_______________________
Owner is responsible for time and expense incurred in an interim bunkering call which was necessary to render vessel seaworthy to complete a contemplated voyage.
SMA 1351
_______________________
Though bunkering was charterers' obligation under charter party, where deviation for bunkers was result of vessel's over consumption during periods of breakdowns and delays due to slow steaming, time and cost of such deviation was for owner's account.
SMA 1109
_______________________
Time lost while awaiting bunkering instructions after completion of discharge was for owner's account because vessel should have continued towards redelivery point in order to minimize damages while parties were working out final bunker arrangement.
SMA 1094
_______________________
Though bunkering was the charterers' obligation under the charter party, where deviation for bunkers was the result of the vessel's over-consumption during periods of breakdowns and delays due to slow steaming, the time and cost of such deviation was for the owner's account.
SMA 1109
_______________________
Where at time of sailing from bunkering port owner requested smaller quantity of bunkers than that ordinarily carried as a reserve, owners' claim for bunker costs differentials on amounts other than those taken into account in the ballast/laden calculation and the quantity consumed during deviations was denied.
SMA 1075
_______________________
The fact that Head Owners ordered the vessel to deviate to Las Palmas for bunkers is in direct contravention to Clause 8.The deviation was not necessary for the completion of the voyage, but rather arranged by Head Owners in anticipation of possible bunker problems after the redelivery of the vessel from Charterers .
SMA 3453