The vessel was fixed on an amended NYPE form for one trip from a USA Gulf Port to a port on the W.C. India. On the passage from Tampa to Port Said the vessel encountered delays due to adverse weather conditions, as asserted by Owners, or engine problems per Charterers' claim. The Charterers considered the time lost as off hire/under performance and made pertinent deductions from hire.
Charterers rejected the Master's allegations that their WRC was negligent in reporting certain weather conditions. Charterers further contend that the vessel, from the beginning of the voyage had problems with pumping IFO out of double bottom tanks, which continued during the voyage, arguing that this might have necessitated to stop the engine on November 13-14. Charterers also pointed to the log book records on December 1, showing that some cracks were found in ballast water tanks, numbers 2 and 3, which could explain in part the over consumption of IFO. In addition, they said that on November 13, it was unusual to have the main engine governor checked under such weather conditions. This job should have been done under calm weather conditions, under normal speed and with the help of shore specialists. Furthermore, they say on November 26, the engine was stopped between 12.00 and 16.00 hours while the log book showed that a LO connection was leaking, contending that these successive stoppages apparently caused the different ETA's to Port Said reported prior to and after the stoppages. Also, Charterers pointed to the engine spare parts shipped to the vessel at Port Said and the Suez delays encountered due to repairs and overhaul of the main engine turbo charger and replacement of some main engine injectors. Charterers further argued that since the vessel performed satisfactorily, after repairs at Suez, the engine problems must have arisen during the prior leg of the voyage. Charterers quantified their speed claim at 1.770833 days lost and over consumption of IFO 81MT and DO 18MT.
Owners contended that the vessel in the early stage of the voyage encountered very heavy weather which caused the Master eventually to reduce speed, stop engines, drift and deviate for safety of the vessel, cargo and crew. Owners submitted evidence from other weather provider to assert that Charterers’ WRC report was erroneous.
Based on the information contained in these weather reports and the prevailing local conditions, Owners contended, the Master considered WRC’s report inaccurate and therefore, decided to adopt various maneuvers; slow down, stop engines, drift and deviate in order to avoid storm ahead of the vessel. Owners concluded that the Master, being the sole judge in navigational matters, acted in a prudent way for safety of the vessel, cargo and crew. Owners contended that under such circumstances the delays encountered due to adverse weather conditions were unavoidable and therefore should not be considered as time lost and off hire.
The Owners’ received weather reports from National weather services and Metro- France at that time showed: Thundery low about 1010 in vicinity 28N 42W moving north deepening expected 1003 near 32N 40W . . ." and at 22.30UTC stating "Developing storm 28N 43W 1007MB moving NNW 15kts. over forecast waters winds 25 to 35kts. seas 10 to 18ft. off 38NE of 50W . . ." Further, at 16.30UTC stating "Developing storm 32N 42W 1003MB moving NNW 15kts. will turn more NW later winds 35 to 45kts. seas 14 to 21ft . . . ."
The Decision
It was evident from the records and evidence presented that the vessel encountered or was threatened with heavy weather conditions, which compelled the Master to exercise his navigational prerogatives and adopt various sailing maneuvers of slowing down, deviating, stopping engines and drifting for safety reasons and in order to avoid severe heavy weather conditions. The panel considered Master's decision as a prudent action. In the absence of any concrete evidence concerning Charterers' allegations, that the delays encountered prior to November 14 may have been due to engine troubles, the panel was unconvinced that such allegations had merit. Based on the information contained in the vessel's log abstracts submitted in evidence, the panel determined that the vessel has met the warranted speed provided in the Charter Party. However, based on the vessel's IFO and DO ROB, it was determined that the vessel under performed by excess consumption of IFO 39.74MT and DO 1.17MT. The vessel encountered delays, as reported, due to engine repairs including deviation for bunkering in Aden amounting to 23.5 hours or .98 days or a total of $ 9,310.00. The IFO and DO consumed during these stoppages and deviation were considered in the computation of IFO and DO over consumption for the voyage based on vessel's ROB records. The panel allowed Charterers' deductions from hire but basis the revised figures above.
Author’s note: The initial quantification of the off-hire deduction appears unsupported. The CP consumption was IFO 22 MT and DO 2.5 MT. Even using the initially claimed 1.770833 days lost, the estimated consumption should approximate 1.77 x 22 + 1.77 x 2.5, or a similar calculation. However, the reported consumption of IFO 81 MT and DO 18 MT cannot be justified based on these parameters.
The revised calculations—39.74 MT of IFO and 1.17 MT of DO—seem more reasonable. Considering the bunker ROB, the panel applied a different methodology that factors in the Departure/Arrival ROBs rather than the approach adopted in London Arbitration 15/05. Several "good weather" methods have been utilized over the years in practice and maritime arbitration. The contrasting approaches are particularly evident in LA 12/14.
A similar view expressed in another London Arbitration that as long as the ship performed as described, there is no basis to hold that engine issues or fouling affected her performance and allow any claim ( since there is no loss).
Â
SMA, 3644