Arbitration- Charterers claim damages for hold's rejection Sep 28, 2025 4 min read Updated: Oct 4, 2025 Summary prepared by Prokopios Krikris, FCIArb, Arbitrator Author's comment: The recurring issues in disputes concerning the rejection of holds include: the status of surveyors (i.e., whether they are official or independent) so that to trigger the "holds condition" clause, the construction of net or period off-hire clauses (where wording is critical), evidential questions (such as whether a rejection was unreasonable or whether appropriate test methods were applied), delays in arranging re-inspections and the resulting time loss, and whether the holds condition clause operates as a complete code or whether Charterers retain a parallel right to claim damages. -------- In this LMAA Arbitration, the vessel arrived at the loading port, where the intended berth was occupied. At that stage, the Sub-Charterers’ agents ordered a pre-inspection of the holds at the anchorage. The Charterers’ surveyors rejected the holds during this pre-inspection, citing the presence of residues from previous cargoes. Photographic evidence was produced in support of these allegations. The Sub-Charterers consequently rejected the initial Notice of Readiness when it was tendered a few days earlier. The vessel eventually berthed several days later, whereupon the holds were inspected and passed by surveyors acting on behalf of the terminal, the Charterers, and the Sub-Charterers. Charterers subsequently deducted from the final hire statement an additional amount equivalent to despatch payable under the voyage sub-charter. Their position was that Owners had breached the charterparty, thereby invalidating the initial NOR, on the basis that the vessel was not ready when the NOR was tendered. This, they argued, resulted in increased despatch under the sub-charter. The tribunal was therefore required to determine the condition of the holds at the relevant time and the consequences for both Owners an