20/09/2016
A ship agent issued bills of lading in respect of a cargo of different types of coal being transported to Canada. Due to human error, they confused the holds and indicated on the bills of lading that Coal Type A cargo was in holds 1, 3 and 5 and Coal Type B cargo was in holds 2 and 4. However, it was actually the other way around.

20/09/2016
A ship agent failed to spot that a bill of lading had specific instructions to arrange the delivery of 10 containers of cargo to the port’s free zone, where the consignee would have enjoyed a free storage period of 21 days from the port authority.

20/09/2016
A ship agent in the USA failed to update a local tug company of a change to a vessel’s departure time. This resulted in the tug being prematurely dispatched to assist the ship. The tug company claimed for the wasted time which had to be paid for by the agent.

20/09/2016
A liner agent had been paying 2.5% of all freight, paid on export cargo to the local tax authorities. Local regulations made the local agent jointly liable for the tax with the foreign carrier.

20/09/2016
A South American port agent was asked by the owners of a vessel to provide a quote for the costs of discharging a shipment of project cargo.

10/03/2015
A liner agent booked a container of calcium hypochlorite to be moved from a port in the Middle East to Europe. Calcium hypochlorite is a dangerous cargo, with an IMO classification of 5.1. The shipping line had sent clear instructions to the agent prohibiting the loading of this cargo, along with a number of other dangerous cargoes. The agent appeared to have overlooked this instruction.

10/03/2015
A firm of agents was asked to book a tractor for shipment from Europe to the Middle East. They quoted a rate based on the weight and realised after the booking was confirmed that they should have quoted a rate based on the cubic meters of the vehicle. The difference was a freight amount of US$12,500. The agents negotiated with the shipping line, who agreed to reduce the amount they required by US$5,000. ITIC paid the remaining amount.

10/03/2015
A ship agent was contacted by charterers. The charterers asked the agent to obtain a quote from a local port on how much it would cost to discharge two parcels weighing 70mt using the shore crane. The agent contacted their usual sub-agent in the port, by telephone, and were given an estimate of US$2,750 per shift, so a total of US$5,500. This estimate was passed by the agent to the charterer, and on this basis the cargo was fixed.

18/09/2014
A recent case in which ITIC supported a ship agent Member in pursuing a claim in the New Zealand High Court shows that timing can be everything when it comes to pursuing a claim against a ship owned by a company in financial difficulty.

18/09/2014
A ship agency had persistent problems obtaining settlement of port disbursements from a recognised and important ship operator in Vietnam. They reported the problem under their ITIC, Rule 10, additional legal expenses and debt collection cover.

Obtenga una cotización

Get a quote

Rellene el cuestionario de propuesta adecuado para recibir cotización

Notfique una reclamación

Make a claim

Guía sobre como notificar una reclamación

Hable con nuestros expertos

Talk to our experts

Contactenos en ITIC
+44 (0)20 7204 2928

You are currently offline. Some pages or content may fail to load.