Claims Review

A ship agent received an e-mail from who they thought was their principal, but the agent had failed to notice that the e-mail address was slightly different to the correct address. The e-mail notified the agent that the bank details of the principal had changed and that funds were to be sent to the new bank account. The new bank account was in a different country with no apparent link to the principal.

A ship broker received a freight invoice via email from owners for US$ 120,000. The bank account detailed in the invoice was the same account as that which had previously been used by owners with the same charterer. Several hours later a further e-mail was received, apparently, from the owner to advise of a change to the bank account details on the invoice. The email stated that the originally detailed bank account was “no longer available to receive payment due to an internal audit that was beginning tomorrow”.

Commercial managers arranged two consecutive voyages. At the conclusion of the first voyage the ship discharged at the outer limit of the port and immediately returned to the load port in order to lift the next cargo. When the ship arrived at the load port the managers discovered the quick turn round had caused a problem

A ship agent received a spreadsheet from their principal showing the ship on which cargoes had been originally loaded in one column and which of two subsequent feeder ships that would be used to carry the cargo to the final discharge port in another column. The latter two ships were scheduled to arrive a week apart.

A marine surveyor carried out a preshipment inspection of two consignments of trucks, cranes and other equipment. The consignments were due to be sent to two different ports in South America. As part of the inspection the marine surveyor was required to ensure that every item was correctly labelled.

Ship brokers fixed a charter with the common laycan provision that if it appears to charterers that the ship’s arrival at the loading port will be delayed charterers may require owners to say when they expect the ship to be ready to load.

A ship manager was managing a tanker entering West African waters. The manager believed the terms of the charterparty provided that armed guards were to be appointed at the charterer’s expense. The manager duly appointed the guards for the voyage at a cost of US$ 170,000.

A ship was proceeding to the discharge port. The agent at the discharge port advised the shipper that the maximum draft in was 40ft and as this vessel was just under 41ft she made an interim call to unload some cargo.

A South American ship agent declared 47 transhipment cargoes to Customs. The declaration was made electronically and referred to a specific manifest. Less than a week later the agent mistakenly entered declarations for the same cargoes but referenced a different manifest.

A liner agent released a cargo of ceramics that had been shipped from the Far East when presented with what they assumed was the original bill of lading. It later transpired that the bill of lading was a forgery.