A dispute arose where the Charterers deducted an amount from the Owners' hire payment, claiming the vessel underperformed in speed and over-consumed fuel during the voyage. The Owners contested, citing adverse currents and disputing the reliability of the Charterers’ weather data (provided by X WRC) compared to the vessel’s logs. The tribunal found that the Charterers’ weather data was more reliable but ruled that the Charterers failed to meet contractual requirements, as their performance claim did not cover the entire voyage, as specified by the CP terms. Consequently, the Charterers' claim was deemed waived.
The vessel initially performed a ballast voyage and then a laden voyage from South Africa to China. According to the charterers’ WRC, it found two good weather days on the laden leg. During these days, the ship performed at about 1 knot below the warranted speed, indicating underperformance.
The weather routing clause defined "good weather days" and included a protocol for performance claims. It required weather evidence primarily from the vessel’s logs unless significant discrepancies existed, in which case independent weather reports would take precedence. It also specified that performance claims must consider the entire charter duration and required written submission within 20 days after the relevant sea passage.
The tribunal concluded that Charterers' failure to comply with procedural and evidentiary requirements, as stipulated by the charterparty, negated their claims for vessel underperformance. Charterers’ claim failed as they did not provide an analysis for the entire charter period, instead focusing solely on the laden voyage.
As the tribunal held, Charterers’ WRC collected data from independent, recognized weather sources, including weather satellites, stationary and drifting buoys, and local weather stations. They used intermediate waypoints spaced at three-hour intervals, and data was then used to calculate the overall mean conditions for selected periods. In contrast, the noon reports from the deck log or data provided by a bridge equipment instrument represented only snapshots of weather conditions at specific times.
Observations
The tribunal’s decision emphasised that the burden lay firmly with the Charterers to ensure that their performance claim complied with the contractual requirements in full. Specifically, the clause outlined clear stipulations: any performance claim regarding speed and consumption needed to account for the entire charter duration, submit a complete calculation, and be presented in writing within 20 days of the sea passage's end. This allocation of responsibility thus protected Owners from having to raise objections proactively, placing the onus on Charterers to meet all contractual requirements precisely when submitting performance claims.
Despite the length of the voyage, the parties seems to accepted that the two-day period was sufficient to calculate underperformance . The tribunal further clarified that "weather" strictly refers to meteorological phenomena, encompassing atmospheric conditions like temperature, humidity, cloud cover, wind, and precipitation, but does not include currents. However, the term “no adverse currents” had already been addressed in The Divinegate decision (the award predates The Divinegate).
The tribunal’s analysis regarding the bridge equipment—despite not involving ECDIS in that specific case—suggests that even with ECDIS, certain challenges persist, even under contracts requiring 24 consecutive hours of favorable weather. This highlights a contrast between monitoring real-time, consecutive conditions and the practice of using “mean” conditions over selected periods.
Author’s note: No other information can be provided for this London Arbitration award of two arbitrators. The above are just observations and not the Author's opinion.