The next ITIC panel debate in the series focuses on naval architecture.
Stuart Munro, CEO of ITIC, explains why ship managers need to take time to understand who insures the ships they manage...
International Transport Intermediaries Club (ITIC) recently settled a dispute between a shipowner and its Turkish agent for losses arising from the refusal of Turkish port authorities to allow a vessel to berth because of its connection to Cyprus.
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.
A ship manager was responsible for the technical management of a bulk carrier which called regularly at an Australian port to load iron ore.
The commercial manager of a tanker arranged a voyage charter. The fixture was recorded in a recap message and was based on the BP Voy 4 form of charterparty with a large number of amendments and additional clauses.
As part of a pipeline project a surveyor carried out geotechnical sampling which required the collection of samples at numerous stations. Unfortunately the surveyor did not follow proper procedures in handling some of the core samples for laboratory tests.
A ship agent was advised by the local pilots’ association that ships arriving or departing the port needed to give two hours’ notice for pilot services instead of one.
A clerical error by a ship agent meant that the temperature on a reefer container, carrying a shipment of peaches, was set at 5.5C instead of 0.5C. The shipping line passed the cargo claim of US$59,000 to their agent. The agent settled the claim and was reimbursed by ITIC
A yacht manager was contracted to provide crew management and ISM consultancy for a superyacht. Although the manager was not contracted to provide technical management, the owner sought their advice on two refits. The manager reviewed the scope of works and the budgets from the refit yards as a favour to their client.