| Archives: March 2020

Award 1248 – C/P Synacomex 90 – Wheat in bulk – “Ice clause” – Notice of arrival – The wait for an icebreaker – Demurrage computation – Defendant unrepresented.
On approaching the port of Rostov, the ship issued a notice of arrival in the zone of Kerch, where it is customary to notify the local authorities of one’s arrival in order to determine the need for assistance according to weather conditions. It then reached the zone where it had to wait for an icebreaker to access the loading dock. In dispute was the validity of the notice of arrival, which the charterer, unrepresented at the arbitration hearing, considered that it had not been issued in the correct form and accordingly that he could not be deemed liable for the lost time spent waiting for the icebreaker. In the absence of the defendant, the Arbitral Tribunal ruled in accordance with article 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It found that, even though the notice of arrival had been issued precociously, it was valid insofar as the ship had reached the area where it had to wait for an icebreaker. Accordingly, compensation for lost time should be paid at the demurrage rate stated

in the charter party, in accordance with the ice clause. The Tribunal awarded the claimant a sum under article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure and ruled that the defendant alone would bear the costs of arbitration.

Award 1249 – C/P Heavyliftvoy –- Joinder of actions – Ship chartered by freight forwarder for loading a patrol vessel – Damage to the patrol vessel’s hull – Claim for compensation from the carrier by the freight forwarder and its insurer – Claim for payment of shipowner’s demurrage to the charterer -– Shipowner’s liability (yes) – Freight forwarder exempted from paying demurrage.

Charter party Heavyliftvoy qualifies the disponent owner as carrier. While a patrol vessel was being hoisted on board, the hard chine of its hull was dented at the points where the slings were used. The on-board repairs were completed a few days later. The patrol vessel was then shipped to its destination without hindrance. In respect of the first

action, the charterer and its insurer were claiming full compensation for the damage from the carrier, whereas in the second action the carrier was claiming demurrage for the port time during the repairs.

The Arbitral Tribunal ordered the joint of
the two actions, which was not
contested by the parties. It was
ascertained that the charter party had
specifically planned to use flat straps 60
centimetres wide, whereas the
shipowner used steel braided cable
slings, which dented the hard chine
areas of the hull. Accordingly, the
Tribunal found that the carrier was fully liable for the damage and had to pay the claimants the sums they claimed, and that the carrier alone was liable for the ship’s port time and consequently that the charterer was exempted from paying demurrage. Moreover the Tribunal ruled that the carrier should pay the claimants a sum under article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure and should bear all the costs of arbitration.