The owners chartered the vessel to the charterers for the carriage of a cargo of bauxite from Indonesia to China.

Disputes arose between the parties for unpaid freight and for the calculation of demurrage at both the load port and discharge port.

Economic Duress and the Owners’ Refusal to Permit Discharge

The first and most striking aspect of the case concerned the owners’ insistence that the charterers agree to their load‑port demurrage calculation before they would permit discharge. Under the charterparty, demurrage was expressly payable twenty banking days after completion of discharge. The owners nevertheless refused to allow the vessel to discharge unless the charterers confirmed the owners’ demurrage figure. This refusal was plainly outside the contractual framework: the owners had no right to exercise any form of lien or operational leverage at that stage. The tribunal found that this conduct amounted to illegitimate pressure within the meaning of economic duress as articulated in the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v Times Travel (UK) Ltd [2021] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 234 case. The charterers had no reasonable alternative but to consent, and the resulting “agreement” could not be enforced. The demurrage calculation therefore had to be assessed on its merits, free from the taint of coercion.

Load Port Laytime and the Meaning of “Shifting”

When the tribunal turned to the substance of the load‑port laytime dispute, the focus was on the meaning of “shifting” under clause 12A. The charterers had deducted numerous short periods described in the Statement of Facts as stoppages due to shifting between hatches. They argued that these interruptions should not count as laytime. The owners countered that these entries referred not to the vessel shifting but to the movement of loading equipment, excavators, or barges. The movement of such equipment was a part of the continuous loading operations. The tribunal agreed with the owners. Clause 12A, properly construed, referred to shifting of the vessel itself, not the repositioning of equipment arranged by the charterers. As a result, the owners’ load‑port calculation was upheld, and the vessel earned demurrage of US$115,843.75.

Discharge Port Demurrage Assessment

The discharge‑port calculation presented a more varied set of issues. The charterers attempted to exclude several periods from laytime, relying on clauses dealing with bad weather, formalities, draft surveys, and shifting. The tribunal examined each period with care. Some exclusions were rejected because the evidence showed that delays were caused by port congestion or weather affecting navigation. The Tribunal agreed with the Owners that the time was not to be excluded. Other claimed exclusions failed because the relevant clauses applied only to time actually used for formalities or surveys, not time spent waiting for them. One period, however, did fall within clause 12a: during discharge, the vessel itself shifted, and this was precisely the type of shifting contemplated by the clause. The owners’ demurrage claim was therefore reduced by US$4,125, but the remainder of the charterers’ deductions were dismissed.

Freight Payment and Alleged Waiver Agreement

The final issue concerned the unpaid balance of freight. Under the charterparty, freight was payable at US$15.30 per metric tonne, amounting to US$2,712,690 for the cargo loaded. The charterers had paid 95% of this sum but withheld the remaining 5%, asserting that the owners had agreed to waive it during a meeting in China. According to the charterers, the freight market had fallen sharply, and they had been compelled to reduce the freight rate under their sub‑charter. They claimed the owners had agreed to absorb part of this loss by waiving the final 5% of freight. The owners denied this categorically.

Key Lessons for Shipowners and Charterers

Although a meeting had taken place, they maintained that they had refused any suggestion that the sub‑charterers’ renegotiation should affect the head charter. Crucially, the charterers had indicated an intention to produce witness evidence from their director who attended the meeting, but they later withdrew from the arbitration and produced no such evidence. in the absence of corroboration, the tribunal rejected the charterers’ account. The alleged variation or waiver was unsupported and therefore failed. The owners were entitled to the outstanding US$135,634.50. Evidence is crucial.

How This Decision May Affect Future Charterparty Disputes

In conclusion, the tribunal’s findings left the charterers liable for a total of US$447,853.25, representing the balance of freight and the net demurrage due. Interest was awarded at 6% per annum, compounded quarterly, and the charterers were ordered to bear their own costs as well as the owners’ costs of the reference and the award. The case stands as a clear illustration of the limits of commercial pressure, the importance of precise contractual interpretation, and the consequences of failing to substantiate factual assertions in arbitration.