Demurrage disputes: does the interruption still matter?

Key takeaways

• Establish the adopted exhaustion point before reviewing later periods.
• Identify the exact basis for excluding or including the interruption.
• Keep the event evidence separate from the contractual conclusion.
• Compare the commercial effect of the competing positions transparently.
• Seek advice on the actual wording rather than relying on a slogan about demurrage.

Replace the slogan with the contractual question

Steamship Mutual's discussion of the Agios Dimitrios explains limits to the familiar proposition that demurrage always continues once begun. The relevant analysis depends on wording and circumstances, including the cause of the lost time. Check the current text and obtain advice before applying any general proposition to the claim.

The practical question is specific: why does a party say this particular period should count or not count? A general reference to weather, waiting or operational difficulty does not identify the contractual mechanism being relied on.

Ask for the relevant provision and factual basis. If the argument concerns a party's conduct rather than an express exception, identify that distinction for the adviser. The commercial desk should not force every disagreement into the same spreadsheet reason code.

This approach avoids unproductive exchanges in which one party repeats that an event occurred and the other repeats that the vessel was already on demurrage. Both statements may be relevant, but neither alone resolves the actual legal question.

Verify the point at which the analysis changes

Before assessing the later interruption, confirm the account's adopted allowance and counted time leading to its exhaustion. A mistake earlier in the sequence can move the point at which a different treatment is being considered.

If that point is disputed, show the dependency. The later-period argument may change depending on which commencement or exclusion position is adopted earlier. Do not present a single definitive demurrage period while concealing the disputed premise that creates it.

The reviewer should also check whether a period crosses the relevant boundary. A single interruption may need to be examined in segments under the adopted analysis. That does not justify inventing an event split; it means applying the reviewed method to the supported timeline.

Where the parties agree on the exhaustion point, record that common ground and focus on the remaining issue. Narrowing the dispute helps the principal understand which part of the claim needs further evidence or advice.

Establish the cause and scope of the interruption

The event record should show what activity was affected, the reported reason and the interval under discussion. If the reason changed, preserve the sequence. A broad label can obscure the very circumstance on which the exception argument depends.

Distinguish an observed event from an inference about responsibility. The fact that an operation stopped does not itself identify who caused the relevant time loss or what contractual consequence follows. Obtain the appropriate factual and technical assessment where needed.

If other activities continued, describe them accurately. Do not infer a proportional deduction or complete absence of effect without review. The commercial significance depends on the actual operation and wording, not simply on whether any activity occurred somewhere during the period.

The evidence request should test the disputed proposition. A large collection of unrelated port records is less useful than a clear explanation from the responsible source about the particular interruption and its boundaries.

Worked fictional comparison of competing positions

This ILLUSTRATIVE dispute assumes that the allowance was already exhausted before a 24-hour review window. The parties disagree about a 6-hour interruption within that window. The assumed pro rata rate is USD 18,000 per day, using 24 hours per day.

The arithmetic isolates the value of the disputed treatment. It does not decide whether the interruption is excluded, whether the exhaustion premise is correct in a real fixture or whether either amount is legally payable. Interest, taxes and other charges are omitted.

A useful commercial briefing would attach the reason each party advances its position and identify the evidence or advice needed to resolve it. A comparison of amounts without those premises tells the principal little about the merits.

Route the disagreement to the right review

The route should reflect the issue rather than the loudest disagreement. An account preparer can reproduce the amounts but should not decide a disputed legal exception by selecting a different cell colour. An adviser can analyse the wording but needs reliable facts about the event.

If a settlement is considered, distinguish its commercial rationale from a conclusion that the disputed treatment is legally correct. The parties may resolve uncertainty without agreeing every underlying proposition. Appropriate terms should identify what is being settled.

Present the claim without hiding its central assumption

The claim narrative should explain the treatment applied to the disputed period and identify the relevant support. Avoid an unexplained inclusion or deduction whose significance becomes apparent only after the recipient inspects the detailed worksheet.

If advice leads to a revised position, update the calculation and cover explanation together. Preserve the original version and explain the change. The principal should know whether the revision follows new evidence, a corrected earlier boundary or a different interpretation.

A clear account can acknowledge a disputed issue while advancing a firm position. Precision is more persuasive than an absolute statement that ignores the counterparty's actual argument. It also makes the next commercial decision easier: obtain evidence, seek further advice, negotiate or pursue the appropriate dispute process.

Common mistakes

Carrying a laytime exclusion into demurrage without reviewing the wording is a mistake. So is dismissing every later interruption solely because the allowance is exhausted. Identify the actual contractual and factual issue.

Do not overlook an earlier calculation error that changes the relevant boundary. Avoid using a cause label as proof of responsibility. Finally, separate the arithmetic difference from the legal merits; a precisely calculated disputed amount remains dependent on the assumptions that produce it.

Where Zeaclub fits

Zeaclub supports agentic, AI-assisted operations with a human in control.

Zeaclub provides a multi-party shared workspace for owners, charterers, brokers and port agents.

Explore Zeaclub

Visit the Zeaclub website