Speed and Performance – In-House Analysis Nov 24, 2025 2 min read By Prokopios Krikris, FCIArb, Arbitrator Speed and consumption claims have long generated considerable interest and debate within the shipping industry. These claims encompass factual and legal questions, as well as matters relating to market practices (see "Reflections on Speed and Performance Claims", Part IV, in I-LAW). A recent trend is the establishment by certain major shipping companies of internal departments dedicated to performance analysis. For instance, when a dispute arises, these companies present their own "in house" analysis to support a claim and a corresponding deduction from hire . A typical question raised is whether this satisfies the tests formulated in The Kostas Melas [I leave this to the Readers' consideration]. In London Arbitration 15/23 , for example, the tribunal approached such internal analyses with caution. Moreover, in London Arbitration 12/24, the tribunal said that WRC must remains impartial. Based on my observations, Owners have raised several issues in challenging these types of claims: Owners have argued that Charterers rely on methodologies that have not been tested in English Courts or London Arbitration (at least as the published awards corroborate). This point, for instance, arose as a significant concern in the Divinegate  case. Owners have asserted that the Charterers’ in-house analysis does not constitute an “independent” assessment required under the relevant weather routing clause. Charterers, in response, contended that the claim was not a typical “performance claim” but something distinct. Owners maintained that, regardless of how Charterers seek to frame their case, they must produce a proper report that applies the terms of the charterparty- see e.g. T he Ioanna, The Pearl C and The Divinegate. Owners further relied on London Arbitration 15/23 , in which the tribunal rejected the use of an in-house analysis. The Owners said that an unofficial ana