The Ocean Neptune - Demurrage claims: timebars and documentary requirements Publications Steamship Mutual Published: May 08, 2018 Contact author Download article pdf In Lukoil Asia Pacific Pte Limited vs Ocean Tankers (Pte) Limited ( The Ocean Neptune ) [2018] EWHC 163 (Comm) MJ Popplewell considered the correct interpretation of the charterparty terms to clarify whether a claim for time lost waiting for orders should be considered a demurrage claim. Facts By means of a fixture recap dated 8 November 2013, Lukoil Asia Pacific Pte Limited voyage chartered the tanker “Ocean Neptune” from Ocean Tankers (Pte) Limited for carriage of clean petroleum products from one safe port Taiwan to one to three safe ports Australia. The recap incorporated the ExxonMobil VOY2005 form and the Lukoil International Trading and Supply Company (“LITASCO”) Clauses, both of which were amended and supplemented in the fixture recap. Notice of readiness was tendered at the port of Mailiao (Taiwan) on 17 November 2013 and the hoses were disconnected two days later. Thereafter the vessel proceeded to the first discharge port, Gladstone (Australia), where NOR was tendered on 2 December 2013. The ship remained at berth between 3 and 5 December 2013, when she shifted to the anchorage. The vessel remained at the anchorage until 15 January 2014, when the vessel was ordered to proceed to Botany Bay (Australia). The delay at Gladstone was caused by the refusal of the cargo receivers to accept delivery of the cargo due to alleged contamination and/or off-specification. The vessel discharged part of the cargo at Botany Bay between 18 and 19 January 2014, and then proceeded to Port Alma to discharge the remaining cargo between 22 and 24 January 2014. The Owners sent a demurrage claim by email on 6 February 2014 in the sum of US$772,327.87. Charterparty Terms The Award and appeal turned on the interpretation of the laytime and demurrage provisions. In particular: LITASCO Clauses 2. CLAIMS A…... CHARTE