In case of delay before the vessel’s berthing, Owners may argue that they should be compensated based on ‘quantum meruit’ to overcome the usual defences on a damages claim – as usually discussed in similar cases.Compensation by quantum meruit was argued in limited cases: Arb 19/98, Arb 18/17, Arb 12/90, but an extra-contractual service was performed. In the recent London Arbitration 14/21, the Owners’ claim failed *London Arbitration 14/21 can be found on this website https://www.lmln.com/ Lloyd’s maritime law newsletter.

This is a topic of constant debate in the shipping industry. Owners and Charterers agree the mode of freight payment in the Charterparty. However, given the recent reported incidents that fraudsters are intercepting emails ( See K v A [2019] EWHC 1118), Charterers usually request additional information before processing their payments. In a previous arbitration case, the tribunal had to determine “Whether obligation to pay 5 per cent balance of freight conditional on provision of “signed/stamped freight invoice”. Owners claimed for the 5% balance of freight and Charterers said that it was a condition precedent to pay after Owners submit a “signed/stamped freight invoice”. The tribunal considered the fundamental importance of freight payment and said that “such technical arguments were a proposition that required meticulous examination” unless included “words to the effect that the charterers’ liability to pay the balance of freight would only arise provided that the relevant invoice was given to them, or would not arise unless it was given, would be required”. Absent clear provisions then Charterers should be cautious before insisting to add “preconditions” to their payment obligations.

This is an old picture. However, similar weather conditions commonly exist in many trading areas during the winter season. Such weather conditions may affect the laytime or time on demurrage; cause freight/dead-freight claims, and lead the parties to significant disputes. This post merely highlights a previous arbitration decision on the issue of delay caused by frozen ballast water. The rest points will be referred to in another article. In this arbitration decision, the Charterers contended that laytime should not count during a short period of few hours that loading suspended due to frozen ballast. The tribunal rejected the Charterers’ submission; because the Charterers had failed to either bring themselves within the ambit of any exception clause or prove fault on the Owners’ or the ships’ part. So, It requires clear wording to interrupt laytime or time on demurrage when the frozen ballast causes the delay, and it will depend on the evidence available to establish fault on the ship’s part.

The blue line represents the direct route that usually the ships follow for this voyage. In this example, the ship followed the route in the brown line instead of the blue line as to conduct crew changes in Manila. This deviation resulted to time lost and more bunkers being consumed. Similar issues are very common in the shipping industry; especially the last two years due to frequent crew changes given the COVID 19 restrictions. To deal with this issue, the industry has adopted new charter clauses that spell out issues of liability but the there is uncertainty on the methods to calculate the loss; thus leaving exposed the parties to costly disputes. From a practical & a commercial standpoint, this short article (i) considers the complexities to calculate loss; (ii) discusses the various methodologies used to calculate loss; and (iii) highlights the potential difficulties, when using performance models, to assess the theoretical performance on the notional voyage thus arriving at a speculative ‘loss’ figure. O riginal post on maritime-risk-intl.com