London Arbitration- whether vessel off hire and liability for cargo shortage fine Oct 10, 2022 3 min read Disputes arose concerning off-hire at Chittagong due to the ship’s trim and stability issues, a cargo shortage claim, and a customs fine. The disputes were referred to a sole arbitrator under the LMAA SCP. The charterers failed to serve their Defence submissions after an order, followed by a peremptory order, and the arbitrator informed the parties that he would proceed to an award. The claims The off hire The owners’ position was that the SOF stated during the disputed period that the mother vessel had stability or trimming problem. Delays due to trim and stability problems did not constitute an off-hire event because, even if the problems had arisen because of the action of the Master, there had been no inefficiency of the vessel or her equipment. Further, a mistake by the Master was not an off-hire event because it was not a default within the meaning of the off-hire clause, clause 15 (The Saldanha [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.187). Further, the owners asserted that the jetty had been obstructed by a shore crane that prevented discharge from holds 1 & 5, and stevedores worked on other holds that affected the vessel’s trim. To defend the owners’ position, the master inserted remarks in the SOF and took photographs of the shore cranes preventing the discharge. Cargo shortage of 527 bags The owners settled a shortage claim and produced the R&R forms. In addition, the shortage resulted in a custom fine paid in cash. Consequently, the owners sought to recover both claims from the charterers according to the Hague Rules, the USCOGSA or the implied indemnity under clause 8. The owners said that the holds were sealed upon completion of loading, and seals were found intact at the discharge port. They submitted that the explanation for the shortage was that the cargo had not been shipped, and the charterers were liable. In particular, the owners submitted that they cou