Ship brokers fixed a charter party that contained an option for a second voyage. They failed to pass on the charterer’s message declaring the second leg option which had to be declared upon completion of loading of the first voyage.

Ship brokers arranged a voyage charter between Rotterdam and the Far East. The charterparty was subject to English law, based on the Asbatankvoy form, and provided that the brokers would receive 1.25% commission.

Ship broker fixed a vessel for an initial period of 3 months with subsequent optional periods of 3 months. The optional periods were declarable 30 days prior to expiry of the preceding period.

It was the weekend and a member of a tanker broker’s operations staff was not on duty. A message was received on their phone, which was linked to their individual email address.

This claim involved one cargo owner, two brokers working at different offices, and three shipowners.

Ship brokers in Asia were due commission on the sale of a vessel for scrap. The buyers performance of the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) was guaranteed by their Hong Kong based affiliate.

A demurrage claim for US$ 352,122 was passed onto the charterer by the broker within the 90 day charterparty time limit period. However, the charterer declined to pay the claim as they had not been given notice that a demurrage claim would be made within the 60 day period provided for in the charterparty. The owner had advised the broker within the 60 day period that a demurrage claim would be made but this had not been passed on by the broker.

A ship broker fixed a tanker for a two-year period to charterer ABC. It was subsequently renewed for a third year. During the course of the third year the brokers arranged a subcharter to XYZ. The subcharter needed to be on back to back terms with the original fixture.

A ship broker had entered into an exclusive commission agreement with a ship owner, which provided for commission of 5% to be paid to the broker on the sale of any of their fleet of vessels even if sold through another broker. The broker heard that two of the owner’s ships had been sold through another broker for EUR 30,300,000 each. The ship owners refused to pay the ship broker’s commission of EUR 303,000. Lawyers were appointed and the commission claim was heard before the First Instance Court in January 2013. The court found for the ship broker and awarded the commission of EUR 303,000 plus interest and costs.


Charterers who had entered a COA asked the shipbroker if they could increase the volume of cargo which had already been booked. The broker, who was working from home, contacted the owner via SMS to ask if there was additional space available on the ship, as charterers might want to increase the volume depending on how much space was available.

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.