The disputes originated under an ExxonMobil VOY2005 Charter Party for a single voyage. The vessel arrived at the designated loading port and remained at anchorage for approximately 18 days due to port congestion. The primary issue in this dispute centered on whether the full demurrage rate or only half the rate should apply during the weather-related delays in berthing the vessel. The vessel arrived at the port on December 19 and berthed in early January. ·         From December 23- December 25, this was deducted in full ·         From December 25- December 26, this was deducted in full ·        From December 27- December 31, it was a period 6 days, 18 hours and 25 minutes that was deducted by 50%. Owners sought recovery of the rest 50%, i.e. 3.384 days demurrage. The Owners contended that the conditions constituted merely "poor weather," which did not meet the threshold for the application of the "half-rate" demurrage standard. The Owners placed minimal emphasis on the terminal's decision to suspend berthing operations due to weather in accordance with its local regulations and instead relied primarily on their own evidence. The Owners submitted various pieces of evidence, including the Master's statement, the vessel's deck logs, the vessel's weather fact sheets, the Master's protests, and photographs taken from the vessel's bridge while it was awaiting berth. The Owners also argued that there were movements by other vessels and ongoing cargo operations during the disputed periods. Charterer contended that the legal authorities relied on by Owner were clearly distinguishable since they interpreted the weather-related half demurrage clauses in the Exxonvoy '69 (Clause 8) and Asbatankvoy (Clause 8). By contrast, Clause 14(b) of the ExxonMobil Voy2005 was similar to the Conoco Weather Clause that provided, in effect, that any weather-related delay in berthing a vessel entitles a charterer to the half-rate. "Severe weather" or "storm" was clearly not the exclusive trigger for the half-rate to apply. The Panel unanimously concluded that Charterer was entitled to half-rate demurrage for the following reasons. Clause 14(b) of the ExxonMobil Voy2005 neither requires that severe weather must be experienced nor that "any weather" is sufficient to trigger the half-rate. Clause 14(b) provides: Weather and/or sea conditions shall include, but not be limited to lightning, restricted visibility (the term "restricted visibility" shall mean any condition in which visibility is restricted by fog, mist, falling snow, ice, heavy rainstorms, sandstorms any other similar causes), storm, wind, waves and/or swells." The Panel interpreted the language of Clause 14(b) to require that the weather must rise to a level that is sufficiently significant to interfere with, impede, disrupt, delay and/or otherwise prevent vessel operations at the specific port, terminal or facility involved. In applying this standard to this specific case, the Panel carefully considered and weighed the actual weather conditions encountered during the times in dispute, the physical characteristics of the terminal and the vessel, and the terminal local rules that clearly alerted arriving vessels to the weather-related restrictions in effect at that time. Furthermore, there was also a dispute over a delay after completion of loading as two tugs were unavailable to unberth the vessel due to tug breakdowns and weather-related reasons. The Panel found that the unavailability of unberthing tugs created a de facto port closure due to "weather and/or sea conditions" and "a breakdown of machinery or equipment in or about the facilities of Charterer, Supplier, Shipper *** of the cargo" as contemplated in Clause 14(b), and awarded Owner half-rate demurrage. Moreover, there was a dispute over when time ends with cargo documents on board or when the documents are signed. Charterer required the cargo documents, particularly the bills of lading, to be reviewed by the Master and signed. Charterer ended its calculation at the point in time when unsigned cargo documents were brought on board but Owners counted time on demurrage up to signing of cargo documents was completed on board. The language of Clause 11 of the Asbatankvoy and Clause 13(c) of the Exxonmobil Voy form charters was strikingly similar and with similar effect. Notwithstanding that loading was completed and the loading arms disconnected, the disputed time used for signing cargo documents, was "solely for Charterer's purpose" and the Panel unanimously awarded Owner its claim. SMA, issued in 2010   Editor's comment: In the event that the dispute concerned the application of the CWC, the evidence provided by the terminal would likely meet the requirement to establish that adverse weather prevailed during the period of delay. The resolution of such cases remains highly fact-sensitive. #laytime #tankers

Summary The dispute arose under a tanker charter party on an amended ASBATANKVOY form, over demurrage charges amounting to $331,567.70 due to excess laytime at four different ports. The Owner initiated arbitration proceedings after the Charterer failed to respond to payment requests. The Panel unanimously found in favor of the Owner based on evidence provided, including statements of facts and notices of readiness showing compliance with charter party requirements. In addition to the demurrage claim, interest from February 6th 2023 until March 4th 2024 amounting to $29,661.69 was awarded along with attorney’s fees and costs totaling $9,163. The total sum ordered for payment by Respondent was $385,262.39 which includes Demurrage ($331,567.70), Interest ($29,661.69), Attorney’s Fees ($9,163), Sub-Total Amount ($370,392.39) and Arbitrators’ Fees as per Appendix B"($14,870). The Voyage The voyage involved loading a full cargo of CBFS, or 67,856.142 MT. Part of the cargo, or 12,678.588 MT, was loaded from the Centre Point Terminal in Port Allen, with the balance cargo of 55,177.554 MT loaded from the IMTT Terminal at St. Rose. The discharge was accomplished by first lightering a total of 12,678.588 MT into two 'Daughter vessels’ (hereafter "transshipment vessels") via STS operations at Dharma, with the balance cargo of 55,177.554 MT discharging at the HDC Terminal in Haldia. The charter party allowed for a total of 192 hours for laytime, with a demurrage rate of $50,000 per day/pro-rata. The charter party expressly provided that the Vessel comply with multiple, specific vessel operational and port restrictive requirements, including tank presentation, maximum draft and clearance restrictions, and extensive requirements on the STS operation. The Panel noted no protests issued by the Charterer or delays specific to the Owner’s failure to comply as contracted. The Vessel waited 5 days to berth at Port Allen and encountered no delays in berthing at St. Rose. As earlier mentioned, the discharge was accomplished by first lightering a total of 12,678.588 MT into two transshipment vessels at Dharma. The first transshipment vessel was available shortly after the M/T Cabo Fuji arrived. However, the M/T Cabo Fuji waited for 3.4 days for the second transshipment vessel to arrive. Although the charter party called for one STS operation, the Panel noted no protest from the Owner for the Vessel performing two STS operations. The remaining 55,177.554 MT of cargo was discharged at Haldia, where the Vessel encountered a minor berthing delay. Decision The Panel found that Owner properly applied the appropriate laytime exceptions and correctly calculated the demurrage as required by the governing charter party. Demurrage was incurred on this voyage primarily due to time lost while the Vessel was waiting to load at Port Allen; and time lost waiting for the second lightering vessel for the STS operation at Dharma. The charter party allowed laytime of 192 hours for loading and discharging, but the Vessel waited slightly over 120 hours [5 days] to berth at Port Allan and about 97 hours [about 4 days] for the second transshipment daughter vessel to arrive at Dharma. The Panel unanimously finds that Owner is due net demurrage of $331,567.70, as set forth in Appendix "A", which is made an integral part of this Award.   The award was published in March 2024 and can be found on Jus Mundi | AI-Powered Search for International Law & Arbitration #tankers #laytime

Disputes emerged under an amended NYPE form charterparty, involving the vessel's voyage from China to Luanda carrying various cargoes. While at Luanda, the vessel suffered stevedore damage and was subjected to heavy swell, leading to repeated allisions with the berth. These incidents caused significant damage, necessitating repairs before the vessel could resume trading. Stevedore damage to hold no 2 and to the Pilot Ladder The undisputed evidence, supported by numerous photographs and expert-witness reports, clearly established that the berth at Luanda was anything but a safe berth for the vessel. The face of the berth consisted of bare rock and large concrete blocks, lacking any kind of fendering systems, with mooring bits missing and/or insufficiently spaced, and exposed to swell, causing the vessel alongside to range and heave, thus subjecting it to frequent contact with the berth. The vessel's classification society determined in its Preliminary Report that some of the damages affecting seaworthiness must be carried out prior to departure. It later decided that the damage to the frames in hold No. 2 and the pilot ladder, needed to be repaired before it would allow the vessel to load any further cargo. Other damage could be repaired at the next drydock. Charterers argued that the repairs were not urgent and could have been done in Luanda or by the ship's crew for a minimal fee. The vessel did proceed to Santos where the repairs were satisfactorily completed. The repair invoices are well supported and unchallenged, as are the various surveyors' charges both at Luanda and Santos as well as the port[1]charges for the vessel's stay at Santos. The Charterers’ main point was that Owners failed to mitigate its damages by diverting the vessel to Santos. Charterers relied on an expert report arguing that the repairs could have been substantially cheaper and more efficiently done in Argentina, to which the vessel, in any case, originally had been intended to proceed next and where indeed, she did load her next cargo. The Panel found the Owners’ decision to repair the vessel at Santos a prudent and reasonable attempt to mitigate its damages. It held that where an innocent party was left to mitigate damages, "The injured claimant need not prove that its mitigation was the best and most effective, only that it was reasonable. At that point, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that the effort to mitigate was palpably unreasonable."( SMA, 3935 followed) Claim for unsafe berth The written and photographic evidence submitted in this arbitration, including the concessions on cross-examination by Charterers’ expert witness that the bollards were improper and insufficient and fenderings were inadequate and unsafe, make it abundantly clear that the berth to which the vessel was assigned, was unsafe for this vessel under the prevailing circumstances. In its subsequent arguments, some three years later in connection with this arbitration, Charterers suggested that the vessel had an insufficient number of lines available and/or that the available lines were worn and/or in unsatisfactory condition. After carefully evaluating the evidence submitted and the arguments made by the parties, the Panel found that the weather and berth conditions, as contemporaneously stated by the Master, very persuasively speak to the events at Luanda at the time of the vessel's stay there and that indeed the vessel and her crew exerted every effort to keep the vessel safe. There was nothing in the record to suggest that the mooring lines used were either insufficient or of unqualified quality or condition. Eleven new mooring lines were eventually purchased and delivered to the vessel. In the Panel’s opinion, Owner was entitled to reimbursement for the broken lines and with taking into account an allowance of "new for old," it allowed the cost of the replacement lines and the expenses of putting them on board. SMA, issued in 2013 Editor’s comment:  Additionally, there were other matters in this arbitration concerning the vessel's performance and the charter duration on a "Without Guarantee" (WOG) basis, which have not been included in the discussion above. The Panel denied the Owners’ claim for excess voyage time for breach of the “ABT 60-70 DWOG” as there was no willful misrepresentation or deliberate deceit and, therefore, no action of bad faith. The Owners also brought a claim for underperformance that arose on the subsequent voyage, as a result of the previous prolonged stay at Luanda. The Panel denied the claim as the Owners should have either arranged for a bottom cleaning or should have prudently taken this situation into consideration when it described the vessel's speed and consumption in its agreement with the next charterers. Interestingly, the circumstances bore a strong resemblance to a dispute involving the Nouakchott port, which was ultimately settled during arbitration under the LMAA Terms. Regrettably, this case did not progress to the stage of an award. The featured picture is unrelated to this arbitration. #unsafeport #swell #underperformance #stevedores

The vessel arrived at Manzanillo on 1 October, and the charter was terminated on 5 November. Subsequently, the Owners arranged another voyage in mitigation of losses. Disputes arose following the termination of the charterparty, with the Owners bringing multiple claims against the Charterers. These claims included detention, freight differential (arising from mitigation), bottom cleaning costs, and compensation for lost time and over-consumption of fuel during the next voyage. The Charterers, however, denied liability for these claims. This post particularly concerns two issues: the costs associated with bottom fouling and the performance-related dispute. Bottom Cleaning As a result of the prolonged stay at Manzanillo, Owners contend that the vessel's bottom became fouled with marine growth which not only adversely affected her speed and fuel consumption, but would require the bottom to be cleaned at some future date. Rather than paid invoices, Owners merely presented an unsupported estimate of $ 15,000 for such cleaning. The panel held that absent persuasive evidence that Owners were required and did pay to have the ship's bottom cleaned and that such cleaning was made necessary by the vessel's prolonged stay in Manzanillo, the panel was obliged to deny this claim. Time Loss and Over-Consumption   Owners claimed for time lost and over-consumption because of the bottom fouling. Here again, Owners had not presented persuasive evidence to support their time lost and excess consumption calculations. Both calculations were merely predicated on a comparison of the ship's actual performance against the speed and consumption warranties contained in the head time charter party.  The panel had seen no evidence of the ship's performance prior to arriving Manzanillo nor what wind and sea conditions were experienced during the mitigation voyage. Absent such proof, the Owners' calculations did not rise to the level of proof required to justify an award. More importantly, if Owners thought the bottom had become fouled, the proper remedy was to have the ship cleaned prior to departing Manzanillo on the mitigation voyage. That did not take place and the panel, therefore, required to also deny this claim. SMA, issued in 2009 Editor's Comment: This scenario commonly arises in practice. A ship departs, and a potential performance claim arises concerning the subsequent voyage. The question arises whether the Owners should clean the ship before departure to mitigate potential losses. Additionally, in situations where the Owners raise a claim for prospective bottom cleaning costs, can they withhold amounts (e.g., set off from overpaid hire) or claim sums that have not yet been expended for cleaning the vessel? The resulting loss must be specifically particularised, and the costs must also be reasonable. Furthermore, some contracts stipulate "hull cleaning" at the Charterers' cost without explicitly referencing "time" or "time, risk, and expense" (see The  Globe Danae  – "always at Charterers' time and expense"). In such instances, the dispute often revolves around whether only the cost of cleaning should be claimed, excluding any associated time. In some arbitration cases, both under time and voyage charter parties and under different contexts, the tribunals treated "cost" as distinct from "time." The featured picture is indicative and not related to the above case. #fouling, #underperformance

Glad to share that my recent article was published in Maritime Risk International and can be found as well in i-law. This article briefly discusses the terms even keel, deep water, calorific fuel value, and the seawater temperature found in vessel’s performance warranties. These terms started life in shipbuilding contracts and complicate the process of establishing breach and loss under a time charter party. Finally, for clarity, the article provides observations from some of the disputes that I handled for Owners, Charterers or weather routing companies (Claims Consultant). However, not all issues are addressed in this short article. In a few published and unpublished awards, the tribunals considered and decided issues related to these terms. Also, in practice, much of the parties’ discussion centered on the burden of proof (including proof of causation-competing causes), presumptions-rebuttal by hard evidence, and implication-given the bare wording. My previous guidebook, ‘Speed and Consumption Claims: A practical perspective and statistics'(see here: https://www.charterpartydisputes.com/post/speed-and-consumption-claims-a-practical-perspective-and-statistics-prokopios-krikris ) made a brief reference to such terms and their frequent usage in charter parties’ performance clauses (see Part III – statistics) that result in disputes. The original post can be found here: Vague terms remain in speed and consumption clauses – Maritime Risk International (maritime-risk-intl.com) .

The Charterers claimed the Vessel underperformed and withheld US$ 95,294.66 from hire based on an analysis and calculations performed by [x] WRC. The dispute was referred to arbitration under the LMAA Terms 2012. A sole arbitrator awarded and directed the charterers to pay the full amount together with interest and costs of this first final Award. Clause 78- Weather routing clause. “…..IN CASE OF CALCULATED UNDERPERFORMANCE OF THE VESSEL AND OWNERS CONTEST SUCH CALCULATIONS, OWNERS ARE TO PROVIDE THEIR REASONS FOR NOT ACCEPTING WRC REPORTAND COPIES OF LOG BOOKS AS EVIDENCE FOR A REVISED PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS BY AN INDEPENDENT WRC which is mutually agreed and cost to be shared 50/50. SUCH REVISED VOYAGE ANALYSIS BY THE INDEPENDANT WRC TO BE FINAL AND BINDING FOR BOTH PARTIES..” Clause 97- Vessel’s description “Speed/cons: abt 14 knots ballast /abt 13.5 knots laden on 36mt IFO (380 cst) at sea for main engineand auxiliaries. No MDO at sea ..Above speed/consumption basis no swell and no adverse current and good weather which is only up to Beaufort scale 4…” The issues In this reference the central issues to be considered were: (i) the meaning and effect of the performance warranty and whether or not the Charterers applied the warranty as it was intended, and (ii) whether the Vessel in fact underperformed or was the performance of the Vessel affected by the weather and sea conditions encountered during each of the voyages. The Owners case The owners disputed the charterers’ calculations and deductions from hire and proposed an independent WRC based on clause 78. Then, the parties could not agree upon an independent WRC, and the owners submitted that since this dispute resolution procedure failed, the matter was to be determined by the arbitration agreement. Owners defended the claim on these grounds: charterers have failed to bring themselves within clause 15 and establish loss due to a defect or breakdown; thus, the claim fails at the outset. Even if charterers bring themselves within clause 15, they cannot show loss of time or bunkers overconsumed when the voyage data are analysed as per the English law principles. Regarding the performance methodology, owners asserted that a day with an adverse current could not qualify as a good weather day to assess the vessel’s performance. Likewise, swell data were missing from the report as compared to the forecasts and any day during which there is swell also cannot qualify as a good weather day. Further, the WRC has not considered the “about” when calculating MDO consumption, and “about” means 5% per London Arbitration 1/07. Therefore, the charterers’ deduction was unlawful. The Charterers case Ballast voyage On 123 hours of good weather, the WRC calculated an average good weather speed of 12.60 knots under a favourable current of 0.20 knots. Thus, the good weather speed was only 12.40 knots. As a result, the vessel lost 64.50 hours and consumed an extra 54.62 mt IFO but saved 3.53 MDO. Laden Voyage The WRC relied on 371.50 hours of good weather and calculated the vessel’s average good weather speed was 12.30 knots, while a favourable current of 0.20 knots assisted her. Thus, the good weather speed was only 12.10 knots. As a result, the vessel lost 64.50 hours and consumed extra 47.92 mt IFO but saved 5.752 MDO. In their submissions, charterers argued that the X report is binding upon all parties. They disputed the owners’ understanding of the off-hire clause 15 and submitted that they were deprived of the full use of the vessel and were entitled to put her off–hire. Alternatively, they were entitled to set off against hire a claim for damages due to owners’ breach of the charter party and relied on The Nanfri [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 132; The Chrysovalandou Dyo [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 159 and to The Kostas Melas [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18. The charterers submitted that the WRC applied a compliant methodology with the charter party terms and English law. The WRC’s method was to assess good weather on a six-hourly analysis, and a “day” is the period between consecutive daily noon positions. Subject to the direction and number of time zones through which a vessel passes, the weather and seas are assessed every six hours and categorised as either “Good” or “Bad” and, if more than half of the day is classified as “Good”, the whole day is considered to be a fair-weather day. The charterers further submitted that the Masters’ noon report did not reflect the weather for the entire day with the same accuracy and detail as the WRC did. Owners’ reply The owners asserted that the charterers’ reliance on the Nanfri was misplaced. The proper way was to read the authorities in conjunction with the test applied in the Kostas Melas, which requires that the right of set-off be measured against the test of good faith. The charterers could only make such deductions in good faith and the reasonable belief that there had been a breach of the Charterparty on the part of the Owners. However, the charterers failed to make any positive case to bring themselves within the off-hire clause 15 or prove an independent breach and were not entitled to claim set-off. Another issue concerned the charterers’ denial of any discrepancies between the weather data in the vessel’s logs and the data calculated by the WRC in their voyage audit reports. The discussion The owners are familiar with the vessel’s performance when giving the warranty and act in good faith. It should be viewed with skepticism if a third-party attempts to reinterpret such a warranty. However, equally, a vessel’s failure to perform should be examined and determined if such failure results from: (i) misrepresentation on the part of the Owners; and/or (ii) a defect in or breakdown of any part of her hull, machinery or equipment as is contemplated by clause 15 of the Charterparty in this reference, and/or (iii) an intentional slowing of the main engine, for whatever reason, and/or (iv) the effect of wind and/or currents and/or waves and/or swell. Off hire Held, that it is well known that if a charterer wishes to make deductions from hire on the basis of the off-hire clause, he must show that the loss of time was a consequence of a defect or breakdown.Charterers did not identify any breakdown or defect which caused any evidenced loss of time or consumption of extra fuel and failed to substantiate an entitlement to claim set-off pursuant to clause 15. Reduce speed – passing strait The owners referred to the remarks included in the Log Abstracts and in the master’s reports to WRC concerning speed reductions and changes in her course to alleviate the effects of heavy weather. The WRC made no allowance in their analysis on the ballast voyage but excluded 6th September from their laden voyage assessment since the master reported he had reduced speed due to poor visibility and heavy coastal vessel traffic. There were times when the Vessel’s speed was intentionally reduced for heavy weather and whilst in congested waters. The performance warranty The performance warranty is clear in its wording and meaning. The Owners intended that the performance warranty be applied, providing the Vessel encountered no swell, no adverse current, and good weather, which is only up to Beaufort Scale 4. The Charterers did not dispute it. Applying these criteria, the owners submitted that the vessel saved time and bunkers. No adverse currents The owners submitted that when the charter party states “no adverse currents”, the charterers could not claim a benefit for favourable currents (London Arbitration 15/07). Held, that as the warranty excludes adverse currents and makes no mention of favourable currents, no account can be taken of favourable currents. As for the “about” allowance, the purpose of the about is to protect the owners if the fuel consumption is slightly above that expected and not penalise the charterers if the Vessel consumes less than expected. No swell Owners highlighted that the WRC has not taken into account the qualifying criterion of “no swell” and referred to the website of the WRC that mentioned “…for days to be selected as “good weather days”, they must meet all parameters defined in the charter party …..” The WRC has applied Significant Wave Height as “the de-factor standard” of the profession and includes swell. Held, that the WRC took no account of the good weather criterion of clause 97 in respect of swell. By their own admission, the Significant Wave Height multiplies the Average Wave Height by a factor of 1.6 and is equivalent to Douglas Sea Scale 3, which includes a Swell Code. Thus, the charterers have not substantiated their claim that the Vessel did not comply with performance warranty during the ballast voyage. Moreover, the Log Abstracts evidence that the Vessel could perform at “about 14 knots” in ballast condition as recorded between 9th and 12th July, and at other times during the voyage. Logs or weather reports The owners submitted that the conditions reported contemporaneously by the Master were, by and large, in accordance with the WRC’ forecast that the Vessel would encounter. The charterers asserted that even if the master’s reports were by and large in accordance with the WRC forecasts it did not mean that the Master had accurately reported the weather encountered. Weather forecasting continues to improve with technology and is more often accurate than it is inaccurate. By and large, modern weather forecasting assisted by the latest technology is reliable across the large and predictable expanses of the world’s oceans. Held, that as the master’s reports are, by and large, in accordance with the forecasts, it is not reasonable to simply dismiss the master’s reports as inaccurate or false. In addition, there is no presumption in the charterparty in favour of the weather data produced by WRC over the evidence of the Master as is contained in his reports and in the Log Abstracts. Significantly, the forecasts predicted the swell would be encountered and WRC took no account of it in the performance assessment. Accordingly, charterers’ claim failed. Comment For the readers’ reference, this award was issued in 2013. Notably, this is another published award that the tribunal departed from London Arbitration 4/12 and followed the London arbitration 15/07, which was heavily argued that applied the correct approach on the issue of positive currents for many years. Now, the Divinegate judicially settles this issue ( https://www.charterpartydisputes.com/the-divinegate-2022-performance-claims ). However, there are still different views on the meaning and application of the words “no swell” in the performance warranty. Based on more recent published awards (and one unpublished), the trend is to avoid a restrictive application in exchange for interpreting this wording with business efficacy in mind. Therefore, London tribunals will likely take a pragmatic view and consider these words to mean “no adverse swell” to make the contract work. In practice, weather routing companies and experts (technical offices) adopt different methodologies, sometimes incorporating a significant wave height of 1.25 meters or 2.0 meters when the charter states, “no adverse swell”; again, this method is not entirely free of criticism since the report’s methodology did not separate wind and sea waves, thus providing a confusing representation of the sea state in the reports ( See also London Arbitration 23/21 & 29/22 ). Further, the parties also attempt to distinguish “no adverse swell” from “no negative influence of swell” or treat these words as a surplusage or give a different meaning, saying the words are ambiguous, i.e., it is susceptible to more than one meaning and reasonably intelligent persons would differ as to which meaning is the proper one. Therefore, the words “no swell” do not offer a complete defense to the owners (as felt when drafting the clause). Based on experience, charterers have points to argue in order to settle. Note: This website removes the names of the parties involved in this or other awards. The reader can find more details on Jus Mundi https://jusmundi.com/en/conflict-checker . These awards mostly come into the public domain through enforcement under the NYC 1958 .

Disputes arose under an amended NYPE 1993 form and came before two LMAA arbitrators for determination. The Owners claimed a balance of US$238,077.18 due to them, and the Charterers claimed a balance in Charterers’ favor of US$245.99. In their Defence submissions, the Charterers attached a hire invoice for US$39,008.29 due to Owners and paid that amount. This decision supports some of the observations made in another post here: Speed & Consumption- in good faith- deductions from hire Deductions The Charterers’ deductions from hire related to alleged underperformance and overconsumption of bunkers together with an alleged stevedore overtime claim in the sum of US$34,852.83. Underperformance claim The Charterers’ hire statement served with their Defence Submissions included deductions from hire as a result of alleged underperformance evidenced by a [X] Performance Report Damietta to Becancour for a period of 6.06208333 days (6.0621 days). The IFO overconsumption figure for Damietta to Escoumains was 25.52mt, and the MGO consumption figure for the same period was 0.77mt. The Owners’ RFI served on 16 September 2021 asked, inter alia, for the Charterers to state precisely the basis on which the Charterers assessed the loss of 6.0620833 days, whether any account had been taken of agreed off-hire or deliberate slow steaming in determining periods of “ good weather ” as defined in the Charterparty and whether it was the Charterers’ case that AIS alone was capable of assessing and quantifying the alleged underperformance of the vessel. In particular, the Owners asked whether four specific periods of time between 9 and 28 October had been assessed as “ good weather “. The Owners also asked whether any deduction in relation to the calculation of 6.0620833 days differed from the same amount included in “ Off-hire ” in the Charterers’ hire statements and/or the “ Off-hire Schedule AIS ” and, if so, to explain in what respect and on what basis such sums for hire for 6.0620833 days remained separately deductible or for the Owners’ account. The Owners requested similar clarification in relation to the calculation of consumption of IFO and MGO and whether account had been taken of any agreed off-hire or deliberate slow steaming in determining the periods of “good weather”. Despite an extension of time for the Charterers to respond, followed by the tribunal’s order for a response failing which a final and peremptory order would follow, the Charterers did not reply. The Disponent Owners sent the following message to the Owners, Charterers and the Tribunal: “Dear Sirs The purpose of the RFIs was to require Charterers (and Sub-Charterers by service down the chain) to properly evidence and quantify the indemnity claim (and defence of sub-charterers) that Vessel underperformed and overconsumed during the period of the sub-charterparty. The RFIs also required proof of loss of the stevedore overtime expenses claimed at Becancour. Alleged Underperformance/overconsumption The Sub-Charterers relied upon weather routing reports prepared by [X], but as Owners pointed out in their submissions, the reports used periods when the Vessel was off-hire to count as “good weather”. As these cannot be used as evidence to support any contention that the Vessel underperformed or overconsumed, the Charterers and Sub-Charterers were requested to provide further information on the basis of which they were entitled to claim the damages sought. Any claim for damages must relate to the warranted capabilities of the Vessel and so can only be assessed according to the contractual yardstick agreed by the parties. If the Sub-Charterers are not prepared to, or cannot, provide proper evidence of any loss suffered as a result of any alleged underperformance or overconsumption then the appropriate sanction is that the defence of Sub-Charterers in relation to underperformance/overconsumption (and by extension the indemnity claim against Owners by Charterers) must be struck out. Stevedore Overtime Expenses Sub-Charterers were requested to provide information regarding timings of the Vessel at Becancour in relation to other vessels and discharge at Becancour in order to evidence the losses allegedly sustained. They were also requested to provide further information on the alleged breach by Charterers/Owners that would entitle to claim any damages at all. If Sub-Charterers (and by extension Charterers) are unable to provide information to support or evidence any alleged loss, then again the appropriate sanction would be that that part of the defence by Sub-Charterers (and by extension the indemnity claim against Owners by Charterers) be struck out. …….. Kind regards “ Held, Liability In the absence of any response from the Charterers and in their breach of the tribunal’s final and peremptory order resulting in the striking out of those parts of the Charterers’ claims identified in the Disponent Owners’ email, the Owners’ claim for unpaid hire in the sum of US$150,354.23 succeeds in full. Costs Since the Owners have succeeded with the most part of the claim, the tribunal found no reason to depart from the normal rule that costs should follow the event. The hourly rates ranging from £185 to £285 were reasonable and lower than those charged by many solicitors’ firms in the maritime field. Award accordingly. Issued 4th of May 2022. Note: This website removes the names of the parties involved in this or other awards. The reader can find more details on Jus Mundi https://jusmundi.com/en/ . These awards mostly come into the public domain through enforcement under the NYC 1958 .

The below analysis is based on the published London Maritime Arbitration awards cited in the guidebook: Prokopios Krikris, A Snapshot Guide to Laytime & Demurrage,2021. Part A: BULK CARRIERS Figure 1: The BIMCO GENCON form leads Figure 2: Sophisticated bargains causing concern Figure 3: Owners’ fault as a usual defence to demurrage claim. Figure 4: The key issues relating to NOR. Part B: TANKERS PartB: TANKER Figure 5: The ASBATANKVOY form leads. Figure 6: Issues of interpretation and when time starts are leading. Part C: COMPARISON BETWEEN BULKERS AND TANKERS Figure 7: The awards and issues involved per category – bulkers lead. Part D: BRIEF REMARKS The sample used is not large. However, from personal experience, the results appear to be realistic. Disputes related to: draft survey, shifting time, excluded periods when the CP is silent on this, excluded periods from laytime or time on demurrage when the CP refers to ‘Owners’ cost or time’, rejection of holds (always invalidates the NOR?), legal readiness (formalities), weather delays and when laytime (or demurrage) ends are usually found in practice. It should be no surprise that there are so many published summaries of awards on these issues. In some cases, inconsistent or vague terms were at the heart of the problem. So, precise drafting (both text and context) will assist the parties in reducing disputes. The published summaries on sale contracts are limited in number. Some published summaries do not mention the charter form. That will have an impact on the results shown in figure1. Most of the summaries contain the authorities, including the previous awards; the tribunal was referred to, e.g. case law and excerpts from leading law textboo ks. Case law and prior awards have been considered in some cases, and either distinguished on the facts or followed. The wording of the clause was open to question: terms agreed upon either during the formation of the contract or after the contract was made, e.g. special agreements, addendum, etc. The disputes usually fall under these categories: charter party, when time starts, and when time ends. The principles of contractual interpretation & construction were applied: ejusdem generis, contra proferentem, specific terms to prevail over general terms, reading the contract as a whole, and whether to imply terms or duties- implied terms rejected when served as to re-write the contract for the parties. Extrinsic evidence to qualify the terms of the contract has usually been denied. The above raise issues of interpretation or construction, several which are complex and costly to resolve. However, the disputes related to SOF usually create low-value claims, especially if the weather delays happened during the excepted periods. The majority of ‘SOF cases’ concerning weather delays. In most cases, the tribunal decided the issue in favour of the Owners. But it depends on the facts of each case, with cases falling on either side of the line. Some cases were decided based on where the burden of proof lies (distinguishing between exception and interruption) and whether the burden was properly discharged. As found, the parties submitted conflicting evidence: logs, weather reports, SOF from various parties, etc. The threat of weather or anticipation of bad weather is not itself bad weather (case law considered). Some extreme weather events were considered: typhoons, hurricane, tropical storm warnings, floods etc., as a weather exceptions or interruption. Holiday: the parties submitted conflicting (or lacked) evidence to prove their case. In some cases, the tribunal found favor of the Owners on the evidence provided and the time counted. This also happened with delays due to strikes or declared force majeure events. Periods of “holiday, strike, and Force majeure” were not permanently excluded from laytime. Some issues raised mixed points of fact and law. The Charterers’ usual defence to the Owners’ demurrage (or detention) claim was that the delay was caused due to the Owners’ or the vessels’ fault. In some cases, the concurrent events that contributed to the delay were considered, including the consequential delays. In many cases, the tribunal decided in favour of the Owners on the evidence and the facts presented. Whether Owners are entitled to a detention claim for delays before loading, after loading, before, or after discharging were considered in a number of cases under different factual matrix. The exercise of a lien for unpaid freight was commonly discussed. Also, who is liable for any delay in signing the cargo documents upon the completion of loading because the parties disagreed on whether the master is allowed to put some remarks in the BL, e.g. damaged or contaminated cargo, etc. The tribunal considered the contractual scheme and the reasonableness of the parties conduct, and decided either in favour of the Owners or the Charterers. The commencement of laytime (NOR validity) is a frequent dispute between the parties. The allegations of waiver and estoppel were most frequently raised and considered in several cases. Depending on the facts of the case and whether the relevant ingredients of waiver or estoppel were established, the tribunal decided either in favour of the Owners or the Charterers. Whether ‘free pratique’ is a mere formality or a precondition to tender the NOR was considered many times. In some cases, it was found not to be a mere formality, e.g. in times of SARS and flu epidemics; thus being a precondition to tender the NOR. In some other cases, the time taken to inspect by the authorities was considered in deciding the matter. Slow pumping claims are decided on the factual matrix of each case. Expert opinion is adduced in some cases. The holds rejection does not always invalidate the NOR (physical readiness). This is another point that causes debate between Owners and Charterers regularly. One of the parties in the string of contracts might say that the declaration of the vessel’s readiness was not given in ‘good faith’ given the poor condition of the holds. In some cases, the tribunal considered the usual practice to re-tender NOR ‘without prejudice to the previous NOR’ during various stages before commencing operation. For bulkers, the published summaries of awards are almost double in number compared to tankers. Also, the issues included in the reference  are about four times more than that of the tankers. This means that, on average, one point decided in one award for tankers and four issues determined in one award for bulkers. This could have potentially rendered onerous the parties’ submissions in the reference in the case of bulkers. As a side note, I should emphasize that the published summaries of the recent awards are more detailed than those of the previous years. The editors of the LMLN are endeavoring to provide the relevant facts needed to understand the issues of law involved and to discern the tribunal’s reasoning. Indeed, this is very useful. #Mustread

The owners’ justified decisions for safety reasons would not amount to ‘fault’ for time to be suspended for demurrage purposes. “Free pratique” requirements will be examined before invalidating a notice of readiness (NOR) . The issues The MT Stena Primorsk was chartered under an amended Shellvoy 6 for a single voyage. The owners claimed demurrage for USD 143,153.64, and the charterers defended the claim on these grounds: (1) the NOR was invalid because the free pratique had not been granted, (2) two incidents allegedly suspended time; the owners’ decision to leave the terminal on 31 March and owners’ refusal to return to berth on 1 April upon the charterers’ request. For these, owners contended that it was due to safety reasons, i.e., to avoid a breach of the vessel’s UKC policy, causing safety concerns, (3) charterers counterclaimed lightering costs and (4) the applicable demurrage rate; full rate or half rate to apply. Both parties relied on expert evidence. The decision In giving judgment for the claimant and dismissing the counterclaim, his honour concluded that: (1) Charterer needs to establish some “fault” on the part of the owner or those the owner is responsible for time to be suspended for demurrage purposes ( The Fontevivo [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 339 ). Where an owner acts in a way authorised by the charter, it can be no fault. The masters’ decision to leave the berth was an appropriate one which did not put the owner in breach of the charter [67]. The owner was entitled to reject the charterers’ request to re-berth on 1 April since the UKC policy was a clear and important term of the charter [68]. There was no fault on the part of the owners, the Master or NMM [70]. However, a capricious refusal might amount to “fault” as to prevent time running for demurrage purposes. Although he made no finding on this, the charterer would almost certainly have been in breach of clause 4 on 1 April if it had ordered the vessel to berth [71]. Based on the data available, the masters’ decision was justified [79]. (2) There are 2 ways to analyse the issue of free pratique: first, there is the formal question of whether it was customary to grant free pratique and second, there is the question of the mechanism of grant. On the evidence, the port authorities acted as if free pratique was granted [73]. There was no issue with the relevant notice of readiness [74]. (3) According to the relevant clause 25, the charterers would meet the costs of lightering. Clause 7 was general and had no application here [77]. (4) The half rate applies in certain limited circumstances, and these do not apply here [78]. ======================= More than 30 LMAA published awards related to “fault” were briefly stated in the pages 34-36 of this free guidebook: https://www.charterpartydisputes.com/a-snapshot-guide-to-laytime-demurrage-a-tribute-to-maritime-arbitrators-prokopios-krikris Source: https://www.bailii.org/

NOR was valid at CJK anchorage, and shifting time was excluded even on demurrage. However, any delays due to enforced lien for unpaid freight are for charterers’ account. The background The vessel was chartered on an amended BEIZAI form for a voyage from Eureka, USA, to Changshu, PRC, to carry a cargo of logs. Disputes arose between the parties about owners’ demurrage claim accrued at Eureka, mainly due to cargo shortage, of US$471,787.98 and demurrage accrued at Changshu (or damages), of US$289,400.11. For NOR issues at Chinese ports, check this post: https://charterpartydisputes.com/chinese-ports-nor-evidence-and-interpretation-issues/ The matter was referred to arbitration, and absent any response by the charterers to owners’ notices to either agree [X] to act as a sole arbitrator or charterers appoint their arbitrator, the arbitrator accepted the appointment as a sole arbitrator under section 17(2) of the AA 1996 and the current LMAA Terms. Owners served their Claim Submissions with supporting documents, copying the charterers, and charterers did not submit their Defence. Thus, the arbitrator advised the parties that he would proceed to an award based on the submissions and documents before him. The respondent made no application to challenge the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, as the clause stated, “ Maritime Arbitration Rules of the United Kingdom ,”. However, on balance, the parties must have intended to conduct the reference under the LMAA Terms. The award The charter provided for total laytime for loading and discharging 16 days for all purposes per WWD SHEX unless used. Also, NOR is to be tendered WWWW upon the vessel’s arrival. If the vessel is on demurrage by the time it arrives at the next port, then time on demurrage continues on vessels considered arrival. Loading port The arbitrator found the owners’ laytime calculations correct. In short, the vessel arrived at 12.00 on 28th July and completed loading on 17th September. Save some interruptions; the vessel exceeded the allowed 16 days all purposes by 32.16 days. The arbitrator awarded owners their loading port demurrage claim of US$471,787.98. Discharging port One delay resulted from charterers’ failure to pay freight as per charter party terms, i.e., within three banking days after completion of loading. Charterers failed to pay freight and loading port demurrage until the vessel arrived at the discharging port. Further, owners became aware that other unauthorised and/or fraudulent set of Bills of Lading was being circulated. Then, owners warned the charterers to exercise their rights of lien over the cargo unless charterers paid the outstanding freight and load port demurrage. The tribunal made these points: Charterers are responsible for the delays that occurred during discharge due to their failure to pay the freight as per charter party terms. The tribunal disagreed with the owners’ calculation that did not exclude the shifting time from anchorage to the berth, even if the vessel was on demurrage.The tribunal construed these words broadly “Shifting from .. loading or discharging berth to be for Owners’ account and time not to count ”, and held, “ There was no indication in that clause that time not to count only applied to laytime and it must therefore also suspend time on demurrage ”. Thus, the tribunal excluded the shifting time even if the vessel was on demurrage. The tribunal disagreed with the owners’ calculations that reflected the completion of discharge on 24th 1430 hours. This seems to be a typo error on the owners’ part as the discharging was completed on 23rd 14.30 instead of 24th 1430 hours. Comment The tribunal seems to have accepted the validity of the NOR tendered upon the vessel’s arrival at CJK anchorage on 8th October, 07.45 hours. This is hotly debated sometimes between the parties ( https://charterpartydisputes.com/chinese-ports-nor-evidence-and-interpretation-issues/ ). There are some published arbitration awards in favour and some against the tribunal’s reasoning concerning the meaning of “time not to count”. In some awards, reference to “time” was treated as “laytime” and not “time on demurrage” (the maxim “once on demurrage always on demurrage” applied). In some other awards, even on demurrage, the shifting time was excluded when the wording of the clause referred to “shifting time not to count”. Therefore, the words were given a narrow or wider interpretation in different cases- [I prefer to not comment on this]. In practice, the author has at least encountered similar arguments in hundreds of cases related to “shifting” or other laytime interruptions under a similar wording, “Owners’ account and time” or at “owners’ cost”. In some awards, different interpretation was given to the words “owners’ account or cost”; either accepted to interrupt laytime or not for draft survey or shifting time or time spent lashing cargo, etc. Therefore, it is suggested to clearly state if this applies to laytime or demurrage, e.g., shifting time to be for the Owners’ account and time not to count as laytime or time on demurrage or similar wording. Especially for river ports where shifting time may be considerable, it will affect the laytime or demurrage calculations. More awards related to “shifting time” or “owners’ account and time” and delays (damages) due to lien can be found in this free published guidebook: https://www.charterpartydisputes.com/a-snapshot-guide-to-laytime-demurrage-a-tribute-to-maritime-arbitrators-prokopios-krikris Note: This website removes the names of the parties involved in this or other awards. The reader can find more details on Jus Mundi https://jusmundi.com/en/conflict-checker . These awards mostly come into the public domain through enforcement under the NYC 1958; the operative provisions of the Convention have been transposed into the law of England and Wales by Part III of the Arbitration Act 1996.

* Delay in sailing due to insufficient depth of water was an impediment beyond the Owner’s control and damages for detention are payable from completion of discharging until the vessel was able to depart*. Disputes arose between the parties under an amended HEAVYLIFTVOY form and referred to arbitration under the LMAA Intermediate Claims Procedure (ICP) 2012. The owner claimed the following sums said to be due and owing: (a) The balance of demurrage at the Port of St Petersburg: USD27,989.47; (b) Damages for detention at the Port of Kolkata: USD60,571.87; (c) Interest due on late payment of freight: USD3,822.00; (d) Interest due on late payment of the amount of demurrage already paid: USD3,321.02 and interest on outstanding amounts and costs. The owners’ claims (a) The balance of demurrage at the Port of St Petersburg: USD27,989.47 NOR tendered on 14 December 0700 hrs. Under box 10, “ Layday period (i) First layday For St. Petersburg: 19.12.2016 […] “. Thus, the laytime commenced at 00.00 hours on 19 December 2016. Loading began at 07.31 on 23 December and was completed at 11.40 on 28 December. The vessel departed shortly afterwards. The charterer was allowed 48 hours of laytime and after deducting this period, the remaining 7 days 11 hours 40 minutes, equivalent to 7.48611days, counted for demurrage. The tribunal accepted the owners’ calculation. As per clause 18 (b), “ Any sums for demurrage and/or detention shall be payable on receipt of the Carriers’ invoice by the Merchant. Payments shall be made to the Carrier’s bank account as stated in Box 1 “. Therefore, the payment fell due on receipt of the invoice. (b) Damages for detention at the Port of Kolkata: USD60,571.87 The vessel arrived at the customary anchorage at Kolkata and tender NOR at 0300 hours to discharge her cargo. The NOR was neither stamped nor acknowledged, but the Statement of Facts records that it was accepted as per BN. The pilot boarded at 0955 hours and made her way to the berth, where she completed discharge on 18 February at 1715 hours. However, draft restrictions prevented the vessel from sailing on completion of discharge. According to the extract from the vessel’s deck log entry, the vessel’s draft was 6.05 m(FWD) and 6.30m (AFT), and the Kolkata Port Trust’s draft forecast showed it would be 6.2 meters or less, which was insufficient clearance for the vessel to sail. Finally, based on 6.4 meters even keel FW sailing draft, the ship would depart at 2200 hours on 25 February. The charter party provided inter alia that: Clause 16 […] actual time lost on the vessel due to impediments beyond the Carrier’s control preventing the vessel from departing the Discharging berth/port will count as laytime or be charged as time for which damages for detention are due at the rate as stated in Box18. Held, that the delay in sailing due to insufficient depth of water was an impediment beyond the Owner’s control and damages for detention are payable from completion of discharging until the vessel was able to depart. The Owner’s calculation has been determined by reference to time lost from 21.15 hours on 18 February 2017 to the vessel’s departure when the pilot boarded at 22.00 hours on 25 February 2017, a total of 7 days 0 hours and 45 minutes or 7.03125 days. Therefore, after deducting the allowed period of 18 hours grace time, damages for detention accrued for a total of 6 days 6 hours 45 minutes (6.28125 days). The charterers said the owner issued an invoice for USD21,252.00 before issuing the invoice for USD60,571.87. The amount of USD 21,252.00 was based on a pro-rata application of the total amount of detention between various part cargoes being carried for the charterer and other interests. The charterer raised two defenses on estoppel and double recovery but failed. (c) Interest due on late payment of freight: USD3,822.00 Clause 28 of the charter read, “If any amounts due under this Charter Party are not paid when due, then interest at the rate of 1.5% per month or pro rata for part of a month shall be paid on all such amounts until payment is received.” The tribunal allowed the claim for 28 days’ interest at USD3,698.71 after making the calculations since the owners’ invoice showed an overstated amount. (d) Interest due on late payment of the amount of demurrage already paid: USD3,321.02 The owners calculated interest on the unpaid demurrage amount for 91 days which was accepted. Costs The owners claimed recoverable costs £10,889.31. The Owner’s claim amounts to USD95,704.36, so the claimed recoverable costs are below the capping level under the ICP (2012). ICP (2012) provides for costs to be awarded on a summary and commercial basis and in such manner and amount as the tribunal, in its absolute discretion, considers to be fair, reasonable and proportional to the matters in dispute. It is further provided that costs are to be capped so that neither party shall be entitled to recover more than a sum equivalent to 30% of the Claimant’s monetary claim. The Owner has largely been successful in the claims made. In accordance with English law, costs normally follow the event. After considering the reasonableness of the costs, the tribunal reduced the lawyers’ fees for document preparation by £866.50. Interest Under section 49 of the Arbitration Act 1996, the owners are entitled to interest on the sums awarded at a commercial rate compounded at three monthly rests as is usual in London arbitrations. Concerning the outstanding demurrage, it shall run from 30 March 2017. Interest on the damages awarded for detention at the Port of Kolkata shall run from 3 August 2017 and interest on the late payments shall run from the date of this Award, 15 February 2018. There is short reference to more than 50 LMAA awards concerning damages for detention before or after loading or discharging in this free guidebook: https://www.charterpartydisputes.com/a-snapshot-guide-to-laytime-demurrage-a-tribute-to-maritime-arbitrators-prokopios-krikris Note: This website removes the names of the parties involved in this or other awards. The reader can find more details on Jus Mundi https://jusmundi.com/en/conflict-checker . These awards mostly come into the public domain through enforcement under the NYC 1958 .

The totality of the evidence showed that the five holds into which the master had advised that he was going to load the cargo were ready when the notice of readiness was tendered. The notice of readiness was therefore valid so as to trigger the running of laytime. The background The vessel was chartered under an amended Gencon form to carry salt in bulk from one safe berth in Damietta, Egypt, to one safe berth in Toledo, Ohio, USA. A dispute arose about the demurrage accrued at Damietta for US$44,012.50, mainly due to an alleged invalid NOR. Accordingly, the dispute was referred to arbitration, and a sole arbitrator was appointed under the LMAA Terms. The parties’ contentions Charterers denied the demurrage claim and argued that the NOR tendered at Damietta was not valid since the vessel arrived with three holds that were not available. In support of their case, the charterers relied on the statement of facts. In response, owners contended that all the holds were ready for loading when the vessel tendered her NOR. The charterers were confusing the number of holds the shippers wanted to load simultaneously compared to the number of holds available for loading cargo when NOR was tendered. The statement of facts The vessel had six holds and six hatches served by three cranes. The NOR tendered at 0600 hours on 23rd October 2018, and according to the statement of facts: “COMMENCE LOADING AT 0345 HRS ON 29/10/2018 AS PER MATER’S (sic) INSTRUCTION ONLY 3 HOLDS ARE ALLOWED TO USE DURING LOADING VSL COMPLETED LOADING AT 0100 HRS ON 31/10/2018 …” The masters’ letter of protest The master endorsed the statement of facts with a remark that his LOP was considered part of the SOF. The LOP stated: “I hereby wish to draw your attention to the fact that upon the vessel arrival p.Damietta, no any request or proposal from stevedores to revise pre-stow plan or loading sequence. Vessel commenced cargo operation by ship cargo gears and 2 conveyors for loading cargo. At beginning, conveyors used only for loading cargo hold no. 5 and not cargo holds nos. 1;2 and 3 due to conveyors has height limitation. I never discuss with stevedores to use ONLY 3 cargo holds for loading. Taking into account abovementioned, I totally reject the notice “AS PER MASTERS INSTRUCTIONS ONLY 3 HOLDS ALLOWED TO USE DURING LOADING” from Statement of Fact as it is not correct. In this respect, neither the Master, Owners or Disponent Owners of the vessel, will accept any responsibility for any claims which may arise there from.” Stowage plan On 12 October, ten days before arrival at Damietta, the owners sent to the charterers the masters’ proposed stowage plan showing that cargo was loaded in all the holds except for H4. The master asked the shippers to advise how many gangs were planning to use for loading and confirm the ship’s gear would be used for loading. They replied, “We will work 24 hrs with 3 gangs using vsl gear.”. As a result, the master submitted a proposed loading sequence by three gangs with H4 remaining empty. On 29 October, [REDACTED] surveyor issued a hold cleanliness letter confirming all holds (save H4) would be loaded and were ready. The Tribunal Held, that the totality of the evidence showed that the five holds into which the master had advised that he was going to load the cargo were ready when the notice of readiness was tendered. There was nothing in the documentation to suggest that anything had changed in the condition of the holds between the tender of the notice of readiness on 23rd October and the inspection by [REDACTED] on 29th October. The notice of readiness was therefore valid so as to trigger the running of laytime. Even if the statement of facts was correct that only three holds at one time were to be used during loading, that would not render the notice of readiness invalid. At most, it would mean that the Charterers would have been able to argue that demurrage should be adjusted to reflect the fact that the loading period had been extended because of the master wrongfully restricting the number of holds that could be loaded at any one time. Such an argument, if made good on the evidence, would have warranted a reduction in the demurrage payable to reflect the period by which loading had been extended compared to the period that would have been required if more holds could have been loaded at one time. It would not reduce it to “a much smaller amount” as argued for by the Charterers. In the event, however, the factual foundation that the master wrongfully restricted the number of holds to be loaded at one time was not made out. Consequently, it followed that the Owners’ claim succeeded in full. Costs followed the event in the usual manner. Final Award, 13 June 2019 Note: for more LMAA published awards dealing with NOR / SOF issues, including similar disputes, check this free guidebook: https://www.charterpartydisputes.com/a-snapshot-guide-to-laytime-demurrage-a-tribute-to-maritime-arbitrators-prokopios-krikris This website removes the names of the parties involved in this or other awards. The reader can find more details on Jus Mundi https://jusmundi.com/en/ . These awards mostly come into the public domain through enforcement under the NYC 1958 .