## Facts

- Orient Shipping Rotterdam B.V. (Orient), the disponent owner of the M/V *Mastrogiorgis B*, entered a voyage charterparty with Hugo Neu & Sons, Inc. (Hugo) to carry a full cargo of shredded scrap metal from New York to one safe berth at Bombay (Mumbai), India (charter dated June 19, 1992).
- The charterparty set laytime terms in Clause 18, including specified loading and discharge rates and that “laytime is reversible.” Discharge was to be at an average rate of 1,500 metric tons per weather working day of 24 consecutive hours (Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays excepted, even if used).
- The vessel loaded about 21,262.8 metric tons in New York, sailed on June 25, 1992, and arrived at Bombay on August 9, 1992.
- The master tendered notice of readiness on August 9; Hugo’s agent accepted it on August 10.
- After arrival, the vessel anchored at the Bombay Floating Light, shifted positions within the port area on directions from port authorities, and did not obtain a berth until September 10, 1992, when discharging began.
- The evidence at trial showed the delay in berthing resulted from port congestion connected to a cluster of scrap-carrying vessels arriving in July and August 1992 and constraints on inland transport needed to remove scrap from the berth (including a shortage of trucks following a transporters’ strike). Scrap was discharged into trucks, so truck scarcity slowed the port’s ability to clear prior scrap ships and created a queue.
- Orient sought demurrage for the time lost at Bombay. Hugo denied liability and counterclaimed for despatch.
- A central charterparty term was a broadly worded exceptions clause relieving the charterer/receiver from demurrage liability where delay was caused by “cause or causes whatsoever” (as characterized by the court), i.e., causes beyond the charterer’s control.
- The charterparty contained no arbitration clause, so the dispute was tried to the court in an admiralty bench trial, with findings and conclusions issued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).

## Issues

1. Whether Hugo was liable for demurrage when the vessel’s berthing and discharge were delayed by Bombay port congestion and related conditions not caused by Hugo.
2. Whether the charterparty’s broad exceptions language (“cause or causes whatsoever,” as used in the contract and construed by the court) applied to excuse the delay time from laytime/demurrage calculations.
3. Whether Orient could avoid the exceptions clause by arguing Hugo should have arranged alternative discharge methods (such as lighters) to reduce delay.

## Decision

- The court held Hugo was not liable for demurrage because the delay at Bombay was caused by port congestion and associated conditions beyond Hugo’s control, falling within the charterparty’s broad exceptions clause.
- The court rejected Orient’s argument that Hugo was required to use lighters or other extraordinary measures to avoid the effects of the congestion; the record did not support treating lightering as a feasible or contractually required substitute under the circumstances.
- Applying the charterparty’s laytime and exceptions provisions, the court entered judgment for Hugo: Orient’s demurrage claim was denied, and Hugo’s counterclaim for despatch was granted based on the contract’s laytime/despatch framework as affected by the excepted delay time.

## Legal Principles

- Demurrage is a contractual remedy for delay chargeable to the charterer; time is not chargeable where the charterparty places the risk of that delay on the owner through an agreed exception.
- A broadly drafted exceptions clause (including language excusing delay from “cause or causes whatsoever” beyond the charterer/receiver’s control) can excuse delay from port congestion and related port conditions when the charterer did not cause the congestion.
- Charterparty clauses are read together; where an exceptions clause applies, it qualifies the operation of laytime and demurrage provisions for the affected period.
- An owner cannot convert an excepted, beyond-control delay into charterer liability by asserting a duty to take uncommon or impractical steps (such as alternative discharge methods) absent contractual language or proof that such steps were realistically available and required.
- Where the contract provides for despatch, and the laytime calculation (as affected by applicable exceptions) shows less chargeable time than allowed laytime, the charterer may recover despatch under the contract’s terms.

## Conclusion

Orient Shipping Rotterdam B.V. v. Hugo Neu & Sons, Inc. holds that a voyage charter’s sweeping exceptions language excused the charterer from demurrage where Bombay discharge delays were caused by port congestion and truck shortages outside the charterer’s control, and the court rejected the owner’s attempt to impose liability based on alleged alternative discharge options, entering judgment for the charterer and awarding despatch under the charterparty’s laytime scheme as modified by the exceptions clause.


Orient Shipping Rotterdam B.V. v. Hugo Neu & Sons, Inc., 918 F. Supp. 806 (1996)