Weather Delays
Where vessel was already on laytime, delays in berthing due to effect of winter swell at Inchon on deep drafted vessel would not be excluded; charter contained no draft restriction.
SMA 3317
_______________________
Charterer held liable for demurrage where Charterer had not met its burden in proving that delays were due to weather conditions
SMA 3290
_______________________
CONOCO Weather Clause does not require a specific weather condition to come into effect, only that the vessel encountered delays in berthing as a result of weather.
SMA 3420
_______________________
Delays due to the vessel’s awaiting Charterer’s berthing instructions held not to be beyond its control.
SMA 3542
_______________________
In a demurrage case where Charterer submitted evidence from third party sources to impeach the weather entries in the ship’s log, although the arbitrators ruled that the Charterer failed to meet its burden of proving “conclusively” that the log entries were wrong, it was clear the arbitrators had in fact properly applied only a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, and their reference to “conclusively” should be disregarded as simply an “inartistic” use of the word.- IMC Maritime Group v. Russian Farm Community Project, 167 Fed. Appx. 845 (2d Cir. 2006)
_______________________
Laytime was expressed in weather working days. Although it rained heavily while the ship waited for berth, Charterer failed to prove that such rain would have interrupted loading had the ship then been in berth and the rain periods were regarded as part of weather working days.
SMA 4156
_______________________
Delay caused by frozen pipe found to be due to breakdown of machinery of charterers, shippers or consignees, and under the terms of the contract of affreightment should be settled at half the demurrage rate
SMA 3583
_______________________
Inability to load cargo at midstream loading platform due to weather conditions (fog) preventing movement of cargo to platform counts against Charterer under “weather working days of 24 hours” provision of charter party.
SMA 3451
_______________________
Since the terminal regulations prohibited berthing when wind speed exceeded 15 knots, the delay in berthing during such periods were attributable to “weather and/or sea conditions” and only half-demurrage accrued
SMA 4104
_______________________
The NORGRAIN charter provided that Charterer was not responsible for “delay to . . . load . . . resulting from Act of God.” In the absence of an agreement between the parties to the contrary, a hurricane is an Act of God, notwithstanding that such storms are seasonal and could be expected to occur
SMA 4037
_______________________
“Half-weather exceptions” applied to laytime calculation for the period when second load berth was not available due to fog.
SMA 3213
_______________________
Despite discharge of cargo being delayed because of hurricanes, the force majeure clause in the charter did not reduce demurrage on a vessel which experienced post-hurricane congestion, especially since the charter gave Charterer multiple discharge berth options and Charterer failed to select one where offloading could have been accomplished sooner
SMA 3990
_______________________
Claimed rain exception to charterer’s laytime calculation will be disallowed where the receiver gave specific instructions to the vessel to keep hatches open during periods of rain
SMA 3792
_______________________
High winds held to be a condition of “weather” preventing work and interrupting laytime.
SMA 3541
_______________________
Charterers have failed to prove that bad weather, in fact, prevented the vessel from berthing. Rather, the evidence supports a contrary conclusion.The Panel also finds no support for Charterers' claim that the vessel was responsible for the delay in commencement of discharge. The Statement of Facts for the discharge port lists the activities which occupied the time in question as normal functions, usually performed by a receiving terminal and ones for which Owners bear no responsibility.
SMA 2281
_______________________
Laytime counted for delays in berthing caused by congestion, but not for delays caused by bad weather. Whether the bad weather qualified as a storm was irrelevant, because the charter provisions for reducing storm delays by half applied only when the vessel was on demurrage.
SMA 2410
_______________________
Laytime ran during periods when pumping was stopped due to surging since such conditions are common at Sandwich on a bend of the Cape Cod Canal.
SMA 2947
_______________________
Even if charterer had not been entitled to delay berthing the ship, the Conoco Weather Clause applied when calculating laytime.
SMA 2940
_______________________
The most realistic proof for weather conditions and its effect upon cargo operations is the contemporaneous entries in vessel's logs, work reports for the port and other vessels discharging the same cargo, as well as the vessel's stevedoring records.
SMA 3835
_______________________
Panel found that for purposes of determining laytime there is no practical difference between terms “weather working” and “weather permitting.”
SMA 3249
_______________________
Invoking Clause 20 (“WEATHER”), Charterers insist on a 50% deduction from Owners' laytime/demurrage accounting for these periods and voyages (i.e., a deduction of 10 hours, 52½ minutes under the second7 and of 17 hours, 5 minutes under the third voyage).Owners reject the application of Clause 20 to bad weather delays during lightering at an anchorage and contend that a lighterage anchorage is not a berth within the meaning of the clause. Owners further argue that laytime is clearly defined in Special Clause 8 (“Lighterage”) without reservation for weather delays, and, moreover, argue that Charterers have not submitted acceptable evidence of bad weather on either voyage for the entire delay period.It is the Panel's opinion that with the exception of the period from 01.10 - 04.05 on February 11th, when Vessel was at anchor, no credible evidence of bad weather has been presented which would merit consideration of a 50% deduction of the laytime.
SMA 2745
_______________________
Delays awaiting cargo documents counted where they were substantiated by the Statement of Facts or other evidence independent of owner's laytime statement. Although the charter provided that “Vessel to clean to Charterer's Inspector's satisfaction”, laytime counted while the vessel's tanks were inspected where additional cleaning was not required.
SMA 2597
_______________________
Where the lighterage contract provided that time was to run continuously from the tendering of the vessel's notice of readiness until dropping the last outbound sea pilot at the last discharge port,the customary exceptions to laytime were eliminated and time counted despite weather delays.
SMA 2952