Speed and Consumption Warranties in Time Charters

A time-charter speed and consumption warranty is one of the most commercially loaded undertakings in shipping. The owner, who designed or purchased the vessel, undertakes that she’ll achieve a defined speed at a defined fuel burn in defined weather. The charterer, who pays every tonne of fuel and must quote freight to its own customers, prices the entire charter on the truth of those numbers. When the vessel underperforms, the charterer loses money on every laden day of the charter, not just on a single voyage.

This article covers the legal structure of the warranty under English law, the NYPE 93 & NYPE 2015 description clause, the BIMCO Speed and Consumption Clause, the definition and operation of good-weather sampling, the “about” tolerance, the continuing-warranty principle, the methodology for calculating the damages claim, the evidential contest between deck logs and weather-routing-company reports, the interaction with the off-hire clause, hull fouling as a recurring dispute, and the CII/EEXI and slow-steaming overlay introduced by the 2021 MARPOL Annex VI amendments. Use the Speed–Power Cubic Fit calculator to model the speed-power-fuel relationship numerically.

Structure of the warranty in NYPE forms

The NYPE 93 time charter form carries the speed description in the vessel particulars preamble. The standard language reads, in relevant part:

“capable of steaming, fully laden, under good weather conditions about [X] knots on a consumption of about [Y] tonnes per day of [grade] fuel oil.”

NYPE 2015, which BIMCO co-publishes with the Association of Ship Brokers and Agents (ASBA), retains the same structure but adds separate ballast-speed and laden-speed warranty tables, a more precise good-weather definition, and the ability to attach the BIMCO Speed and Consumption Clause as Rider Clause A. Both forms place the warranty in the description clause, not in a separate operative covenant. That placement matters because the distinction between warranty and condition determines the available remedies: breach of a description warranty in a time charter normally sounds in damages, not termination, unless the breach goes to the root of the contract.

The NYPE forms say “capable of steaming” in good weather, not “will steam.” That phrasing reflects the basic architecture: the warranty covers the vessel’s capacity, and the charterer bears the risk of weather worse than the defined threshold. Whether the vessel was actually ordered to steam at full speed is a separate question; the warranty is breached if the vessel, when assessed during the qualifying good-weather periods, fails to achieve the warranted speed.

The “about” tolerance: 0.5 knots and 5 percent

“About” in the speed warranty is not an invitation to ignore minor deviations. The word was interpreted in a line of English cases that converged on the following rule: the tolerance is 0.5 knots on speed and roughly 5 percent on daily fuel consumption. Three cases define the contours.

In The Apollonius [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 53, the court held that a warranty of “about 14.5 knots” was satisfied by performance of approximately 14 knots, given the context and the word “about.” In The Al Bida [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 124, the Court of Appeal addressed a warranty of “about 12.5 knots” where the vessel was consistently achieving 11.8 knots. The court found a breach. The clearest formulation comes from The Didymi [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 108, where Staughton LJ confirmed that “about” in the context of a speed warranty imports a margin of half a knot, and Neill LJ added that the corresponding consumption margin is approximately 5 percent. The court made clear that the “about” tolerance doesn’t mean that performance anywhere within the tolerance band is automatically compliant: persistent shortfall at the boundary of the tolerance requires explanation.

The practical consequence is that a vessel warranted at 14 knots and consistently achieving 13.4 knots in good weather is in breach, not within tolerance. A vessel achieving 13.55 knots is borderline, and the arbitrator will look at the distribution of the sample observations, not just the mean.

The continuing warranty: The Didymi [1988] and its progeny

The most important structural question about the speed warranty is whether it’s a warranty at delivery only (a one-time undertaking that the vessel’s speed and consumption are as described at the moment of delivery), or a continuing obligation that persists throughout the charter period. In The Didymi, the Court of Appeal held that the warranty is a continuing obligation. The vessel must meet the description throughout the charter, not just at the moment of delivery. A vessel that meets the warranted speed at delivery but deteriorates due to hull fouling, engine wear, or mechanical problems is in breach for the period of underperformance, regardless of its initial compliance.

The Gas Enterprise [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 352 reinforced this. There, the charterers sought to recover for underperformance during the latter portion of a long time charter, arguing that the warranted speed at delivery was no longer being achieved. The court confirmed that the owners’ obligation was ongoing and that the charterers could claim for each period during which the vessel fell short, subject to quantification by good-weather sampling. The continuing nature of the warranty means that a performance claim can accumulate across multiple voyages and multiple redelivery periods over the full charter duration, subject only to the charterer’s obligation to give timely notice.

The Ocean Virgo [2018] EWHC 1348 (Comm) addressed a more specific question: what constitutes a valid good-weather sampling period, and what data sources are admissible to prove it? The case involved a vessel on a long-term charter where the charterers relied primarily on the reports of a weather routing company (Applied Weather Technology / AWT), while the owners challenged the accuracy of those reports by reference to the vessel’s own deck logs and noon reports. The court accepted the routing company’s data as the primary evidentiary base, noting that modern vessel performance monitoring and reanalysis of ECMWF/GFS grid data produces more reliable reconstructions of encountered conditions than noon reports written by the vessel’s own officers at noon each day. The judgment confirmed that good-weather periods must satisfy all limbs of the definition simultaneously (wind, sea state, current, swell), and that periods where any limb is equivocal must be excluded from the sample.

Good-weather definition: the four conditions

The good-weather definition in modern charters typically requires all four of the following to be satisfied simultaneously during the sampling period:

Beaufort force 4 corresponds to a “moderate breeze” with wind speeds of 11 to 16 knots and corresponding wave heights of 1 to 1.5 m in open sea. Beaufort force 5 (17 to 21 knots) produces 1.5 to 2.5 m waves and is typically excluded from good-weather periods in modern NYPE charters. Sea state and wind force don’t track each other exactly: a Beaufort 4 wind blowing against a contrary current or a long-period swell can produce Douglas sea state 4 conditions. Both must be below threshold.

The current exclusion is non-trivial in certain routes. The Gulf Stream off the US east coast, the Kuroshio current off Japan, and the Somali current in the western Indian Ocean can impose adverse currents of 1 to 3 knots. During those periods, the vessel is excluded from the good-weather sample, which means that a charter covering a high proportion of current-affected voyages can result in very thin sampling periods and a correspondingly imprecise performance assessment.

“No negative influence of swell” is the least precisely defined limb. Some charters quantify it by reference to a wave-height threshold (e.g. significant wave height from any direction must not exceed 1.5 m), while others leave it to expert assessment. Tribunals have tended to apply the swell exclusion conservatively, requiring positive evidence that swell materially affected performance before excluding an otherwise qualifying period.

Good-weather sampling methodology

Performance claims under time charters are built by identifying good-weather periods in the voyage, computing actual vessel performance during those periods, and extrapolating to the full voyage. The five-step methodology:

Step 1: Weather reanalysis. A weather routing service (typically Applied Weather Technology / AWT, StormGeo, or Weather News Inc) uses the vessel’s position reports or AIS track together with gridded meteorological reanalysis data (ECMWF ERA5 or NCEP/NCAR reanalysis) to reconstruct the wind force, sea state, current, and swell at the vessel’s actual position at each hourly interval of the voyage. The reanalysis data is retrospective and uses actual measured observations assimilated into a numerical weather model, unlike the forecasts used in real-time routing.

Step 2: Good-weather period identification. Hours or half-day blocks where all four conditions (wind, sea state, current, swell) fall within the charter’s thresholds are flagged as good-weather periods. Hours where any single condition is equivocal are typically excluded; the claim is built conservatively.

Step 3: Actual performance calculation. Within the good-weather periods, the vessel’s actual average speed over ground (corrected for current to give speed through water) and actual average fuel consumption per day are computed. The source data is typically the vessel’s own noon reports (speed over ground, engine RPM, daily consumption), supplemented where available by continuous performance monitoring system (PMS) data.

Step 4: Underperformance quantification. The difference between actual good-weather speed and the warranted speed, and the difference between actual good-weather consumption and the warranted consumption, are the underperformance figures. Typically, $\Delta v$ is the speed shortfall in knots and $\Delta c$ is the consumption excess in metric tonnes per day.

Step 5: Extrapolation and claim calculation. The good-weather underperformance is extrapolated to the full voyage. The time lost calculation uses:

where $D_{total}$ is the total voyage duration in days and the ratio converts speed shortfall to proportional time lost. The charter hire claim is then:

where $H_{daily}$ is the daily hire rate. The bunker overconsumption claim is:

where $P_{bunker}$ is the prevailing price per metric tonne of the relevant fuel grade. Both claims typically arise together. The total is deducted from the next hire instalment or settled by separate credit note, as the charter provides.

The Speed–Power Cubic Fit calculator implements the underlying speed-power-consumption relationship used in these extrapolations.

Deck logs versus weather routing company evidence

The evidential contest between the vessel’s own records and an independent weather routing report is now the central procedural issue in most performance arbitrations. Deck logs and noon reports have the advantage of immediacy: they were written by the vessel’s officers on the day. They have the disadvantage of subjectivity: the officer of the watch observing Beaufort conditions visually is influenced by context (a master keen to defend a speed claim has an incentive to record Beaufort 5 when the routing company records Beaufort 4).

Weather routing company data has the advantage of independence and methodological consistency: the same reanalysis grid and classification algorithm applies to every vessel and every voyage. The Ocean Virgo [2018] EWHC 1348 (Comm) marked a turning point: the Commercial Court accepted routing company reanalysis as the primary evidentiary base over the owners’ noon reports, finding that the systematic methodology of the routing service was more reliable than officer estimates of Beaufort conditions. The judgment noted that ECMWF ERA5 reanalysis has a spatial resolution of 31 km and a temporal resolution of 1 hour, producing a reconstruction far denser than noon reports.

The residual issue is the conversion from wind force to wave height. The Beaufort scale gives wind speed; actual wave height at a given wind speed depends on the fetch and the duration of the wind. Routing services apply a parametric wave model to estimate significant wave height from wind-speed history. The model is validated against measured buoy data but introduces a layer of inference not present in the raw wind data. Owners occasionally challenge the wave model and argue that actual wave heights were lower than the routing service’s model predicts, thereby pushing periods back into the good-weather sample.

Modern sea trial and performance testing practices increasingly use continuous PMS data acquisition, which records main-engine shaft power, RPM, fuel flow rate, speed through water from a hull-mounted log, and speed over ground from GNSS at intervals of one minute or finer. When PMS data exists, it removes the noon-report subjectivity entirely and produces a continuous performance-versus-warranty curve. Arbitral tribunals have required disclosure of PMS data when it exists, and BIMCO’s 2017 standard provisions expressly contemplate its use.

The BIMCO Speed and Consumption Clause

The BIMCO Speed and Consumption Clause for Time Charter Parties is the industry standard provision that turns the bare NYPE description clause into a structured, claim-ready framework. Its key provisions:

Warranty table. The clause replaces the narrative description with a tabular warranty covering at minimum laden service speed and daily consumption, ballast service speed and daily consumption, and port consumption (idle and working). Modern addenda add separate eco-speed and full-speed rows for vessels with multiple approved power settings.

Good-weather definition. The clause defines good weather by reference to the four conditions in the table above. The 2013/2017 revision specifies that all conditions must be met simultaneously and that partial-day periods must be excluded if any condition is equivocal for part of that period.

Minimum sampling period. The clause requires a minimum of 24 consecutive hours of qualifying good weather to constitute a valid sampling period. This prevents cherry-picking short favourable windows. Where a voyage is entirely in bad weather, the clause provides that the warranty cannot be assessed for that voyage; the parties may seek to apply the warranty over a longer sampling window spanning multiple voyages.

Consumption at non-warranted speed. The clause confirms that consumption at speeds above the warranted speed is for the charterer’s account. If the charterer orders 15.5 knots on a vessel warranted at 14.5 knots, the additional fuel is the charterer’s risk. The cubic relationship between speed and power means the additional consumption is non-linear: raising speed by 1 knot on a 14.5-knot vessel increases power demand by approximately $(15.5/14.5)^3 \approx 23\%$ and consumption by a similar proportion.

Interaction with the off-hire clause. The BIMCO clause makes clear that time lost attributable to vessel underperformance is recoverable as a damages claim under the speed warranty, not as an off-hire event. Off-hire arises from breakdown, arrest, deficiency of officers, or other causes listed in the off-hire clause; underperformance short of breakdown doesn’t trigger off-hire. The distinction matters because off-hire suspends hire automatically from the triggering event, while a speed-warranty claim is a damages action that the charterer must establish by reference to the good-weather sampling. The off-hire and performance claims article examines how the two remedies interact and where the line falls.

Hull fouling and its interaction with the speed warranty

Hull and propeller fouling is the most common single cause of time-charter speed underperformance. Hard fouling from barnacles and tubeworms, and slime fouling in warm shallow-water ports, progressively increase hull resistance. A vessel drydocked with a fresh antifouling coating at the start of a two-year charter can lose 1 to 2 knots of speed and 3 to 6 tonnes per day of additional consumption by the end of the charter if the trading pattern involves extended port stays in tropical waters.

The legal question is who bears the risk. Under the default English-law position, the owner warrants the vessel’s speed continuously (The Didymi principle), and fouling attributable to normal wear and tear is the owner’s risk. The BIMCO Hull Fouling Clause for Time Charter Parties 2013 shifts part of the risk back to the charterer where the charterer’s own trading orders caused fouling beyond the antifouling system’s designed service life. The clause requires the charterer to nominate ports and stays consistent with the vessel’s antifouling specification, and it allocates the cost of unscheduled cleaning to the charterer where the deviation from specification is established.

Practically, hull-fouling disputes in performance arbitrations typically proceed on expert evidence: a hull-condition surveyor’s report from underwater video inspection, growth-rate predictions from antifouling system datasheets for the voyage’s water temperatures and port-stay profile, and comparison of the vessel’s actual performance trend over the charter against the predicted fouling curve. The BIMCO Hull Fouling Clause establishes the analytical framework, but the factual disputes are complex and often resolved by a weighted apportionment between the parties.

See the Hull Performance ISO 19030 calculator for the ISO 19030 hull performance monitoring methodology, which is increasingly referenced in charter clauses as the standard for assessing in-service fouling deterioration.

Slow steaming and the consumption warranty

Slow steaming is the charterer’s right to order the vessel to steam below the warranted service speed in order to save fuel. It was adopted industry-wide from around 2008 in response to high bunker prices and is now embedded in modern charters. The BIMCO Slow Steaming Clause for Time Charter Parties addresses the operational risks of running a large two-stroke main engine well below its design RPM: combustion deposits, turbocharger fouling, cylinder liner wear. The clause requires the owner to use reasonable efforts to minimise those risks, and it holds the charterer liable for consequential engine damage if the slow-steaming operation exceeds specified limits.

The consumption warranty does not directly govern slow-steaming operations. The warranted consumption is stated at the warranted speed, and the charter typically contains a separate slow-steaming consumption schedule agreed at the time of fixture. That schedule expresses expected fuel consumption at each agreed slow-steaming speed, and it is separately warranted. A vessel ordered to steam at 10 knots (eco speed) that consistently burns 2 tonnes per day above the slow-steaming schedule is in breach of the slow-steaming consumption warranty, not the main warranty. The voyage slow-steaming savings calculator quantifies the commercial benefit and the consumption relationship across the speed range.

The engine derating for slow steaming article covers the mechanical side of power reduction; the two issues converge in performance claims where the owner argues that slow-steaming-induced fouling or derating is the cause of subsequent underperformance at service speed.

CII, EEXI, and the EPL/ShaPoLi overlay

The 2021 MARPOL Annex VI amendments (MEPC.328(76) and MEPC.346(78)) introduced the Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) and the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII), both mandatory from 1 January 2023. For vessels subject to an Engine Power Limitation (EPL, also called ShaPoLi) to achieve their EEXI rating, the maximum service speed is physically reduced by the EPL hardware or software. An EPL-limited vessel with a warranted speed of 14.5 knots that can physically achieve only 13 knots at 75% MCR is in a structural tension with the NYPE description clause.

The BIMCO CII Operations Clause for Time Charter Parties addresses this directly. The clause allocates operational CII responsibility between owner and charterer (the charterer controls speed and routing; the owner controls maintenance, hull condition, and EEXI-related power limits), sets out a joint CII management framework, and provides that the charterer’s speed instructions must be consistent with achieving the target CII rating. Where an EPL is in place, the clause requires disclosure to the charterer at the time of fixture, and it provides that the warranted speed must be re-expressed at the EPL-limited maximum power. Failure to disclose an EPL before fixing is now a material non-disclosure that goes to the root of the speed warranty.

The slow steaming and CII article covers the operational interaction between the CII target, the minimum propulsion power requirement under MEPC.332(76), and the slow-steaming instruction in detail.

The performance claim: key dispute patterns

Five recurring issues dominate performance claims in London arbitration (LMAA) and in the London Commercial Court:

1. Sampling-period arguments. The owner challenges the routing service’s identification of good-weather periods, arguing that conditions were worse than the service’s data shows. Owners typically rely on the deck log’s Beaufort observations to argue that force 5 or worse conditions prevailed during periods the routing service classified as force 4. Post-Ocean Virgo, this argument carries less weight, but it persists where the vessel was operating in a region with limited reanalysis data density (e.g. near a tropical low-pressure system or in a strait with complex local wind patterns).

2. Current corrections. Adverse currents that fall just below the “no adverse current” threshold can reduce speed over ground without being excluded from the good-weather sample. The routing service measures speed over ground from AIS; the warranty is about speed through water. If a 0.4-knot favourable current inflates speed over ground during a sampling period, the owner may argue the charterer is claiming a consumption shortfall that doesn’t exist in speed-through-water terms.

3. Consumption measurement. The warranted consumption is a daily figure; actual consumption is typically measured from bunker surveys (robbing tanks measured at noon each day). Tank measurements have an error of ±1 to 3 tonnes per measurement due to vessel trim, sloshing, and temperature corrections. Over a 30-day voyage, cumulative measurement error can equal or exceed the claimed overconsumption. Owners routinely challenge consumption claims that are within the measurement error band.

4. Causation and the fouling defence. The owner argues that underperformance is caused by fouling attributable to the charterer’s trading orders (long tropical anchorages, ports with high biological activity), not by a latent vessel deficiency. The charterer argues that the warranty is unconditional and that causation is irrelevant. Tribunals typically apportion on the facts; the BIMCO Hull Fouling Clause provides the framework but doesn’t eliminate the factual dispute.

5. Notice and mitigation. A charterer that accumulates a large performance claim over many months without giving notice invites a mitigation defence. The principle is that a charterer who identified underperformance in March but said nothing until December, while the owner could have cleaned the hull in April, is partly responsible for the loss from April onwards. The obligation to give notice is typically spelled out in the BIMCO clause; the obligation to allow reasonable time for investigation and remedy is implied.

The “no specific direction or order” defence

The owner has a recognised defence where the underperformance is attributable to the charterer’s own orders. The leading cases are The Aquacharm [1982] 1 WLR 119 and The Pamphilos [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 681. In The Aquacharm, the vessel’s speed was reduced because the charterer ordered her into an ice-affected passage; the court held that the speed shortfall was attributable to the charterer’s orders and not to a breach of the speed warranty. In The Pamphilos, the vessel was consistently underperforming due to propeller fouling, but the owners successfully argued that the charterer’s trading orders in warm tropical waters with extended port stays had accelerated the fouling beyond the antifouling system’s design capability.

The defence requires the owner to establish a causal link between the charterer’s specific orders and the underperformance. A vague allegation that the charterer’s orders contributed to fouling doesn’t suffice; the owner must show the specific trading pattern, the antifouling system’s design specification, and the growth-rate prediction that links the two. Post-BIMCO Hull Fouling Clause 2013, the clause provides the analytical template, but the factual burden remains on the owner.

Mitigation obligations

Both parties carry mitigation obligations in a continuing performance dispute. The owner must maintain the hull and propeller in a condition consistent with the warranty, respond promptly to performance notices, and arrange underwater cleaning where operationally feasible. The owner isn’t required to drydock the vessel mid-charter, but it must take reasonable steps available without drydocking: propeller polishing, hull cleaning by divers where local port rules permit.

The charterer must give timely notice of underperformance. Most BIMCO clauses require notice within 30 days of the voyage end. A charterer that waits until the end of the charter to present a multi-voyage claim without prior notice faces a mitigation defence for the period during which notice was withheld and the owner could have investigated. The LMAA rules and the LMAA Small Claims Procedure are the procedural vehicle for most performance claims below USD 100,000; larger claims go to full LMAA arbitration or, occasionally, to the London Commercial Court.

Interaction with the off-hire clause

The speed warranty and the off-hire clause address different failure modes and produce different remedies. Off-hire under NYPE Clause 15 (or its NYPE 2015 equivalent) operates automatically when the vessel cannot perform the charter service due to breakdown, deficiency of men or stores, drydocking, or other causes preventing the full working of the vessel. Off-hire suspends hire from the triggering event until the vessel is again capable of full performance.

Speed warranty claims are different in nature: the vessel is technically operational, but performing below the warranted level. The hire continues to run. The charterer’s remedy is a damages claim, not a suspension of hire. Where a vessel’s underperformance is so severe that she “cannot perform the charter service” at all (complete engine failure, for example), the off-hire clause may be triggered in parallel, but that is a different factual scenario from the ordinary good-weather performance shortfall. The off-hire and performance claims article examines the boundary in detail, including the leading case The Saldanha and the distinction between partial and total incapacity.

Practitioners use the off-hire deduction calculator to quantify the hire deduction for a pure off-hire event and the hire off calculator to cross-check the arithmetic before deducting from a hire instalment.

Comparison of warranty types

Vessel performance monitoring systems

The decade since 2015 produced widespread adoption of continuous vessel performance monitoring systems (VPMS / onboard PMS). These systems record main-engine shaft power output, fuel flow rate, RPM, speed through water (hull-mounted Doppler or Pitot log), speed over ground (GNSS), draught (pressure sensors or inclinometers), trim, and sea temperature at intervals of one minute or less. The data is transmitted to shore via satellite in near real time.

The evidentiary significance is substantial. VPMS data replaces noon-report estimates with calibrated measurements, reduces sampling-period disputes by providing continuous performance coverage rather than 24-hour blocks, and allows the performance curve to be reconstructed without reliance on the weather routing service’s wave model for the current correction. Arbitral tribunals have required VPMS disclosure when it exists and have drawn adverse inferences from non-disclosure.

The ISO 19030 standard (Ships and marine technology: Measurement of changes in hull and propeller performance) published in 2016 establishes a methodology for using continuous monitoring data to quantify hull-fouling-induced performance loss. The Hull Performance ISO 19030 calculator implements the ISO 19030 reference-condition methodology. Where a charter incorporates ISO 19030 by reference for fouling assessment, it provides a more objective basis for the hull-fouling defence than the traditional growth-rate-estimate approach.

The marine engine performance monitoring article covers the engine-side of VPMS in more detail, including the principal commercial systems (Marorka, OSi, AMOS, Danaos Performance) and their integration with weather routing data.

Limitations

Case law is predominantly English. This article draws on English Commercial Court and Court of Appeal decisions. Norwegian arbitration (which governs BALTIME and many Scandinavian fixtures), Singapore arbitration (which has its own body of speed-warranty decisions), and US arbitration (SMAAG for bulk fixtures) apply different procedural rules and, in some cases, different substantive approaches to the “about” margin and the good-weather sampling methodology.

The “about” tolerances are guidelines, not hard rules. The 0.5-knot / 5-percent rule from The Didymi reflects the facts of that case. Subsequent arbitrations have applied the principle with some variation depending on the warranted speed (the 0.5-knot margin is a higher percentage at 10 knots than at 16 knots), the vessel type, and the precision of the warranty language. Clauses that expressly define the tolerance (as the BIMCO 2017 revision permits) override the common-law default.

CII and EEXI create a moving target. The annual CII required reduction factor means that a vessel’s CII target changes each year. A charter fixed in 2023 that didn’t contemplate EPL disclosure may face a vessel with a 2025 EPL installation; the interaction between the warranty and the post-fixture EPL is an emerging area of dispute that the BIMCO CII Operations Clause attempts to manage but doesn’t fully resolve.

Weather reanalysis is not infallible. ECMWF ERA5 reanalysis at 31 km resolution produces the best available reconstruction of historical conditions but still carries uncertainty in rapidly developing weather systems, in straits and archipelagos with complex orographic wind patterns, and near tropical cyclones. Claims that turn on borderline good-weather classification in these areas remain genuinely uncertain.

Fuel measurement accuracy limits small claims. For consumption overconsumption claims below approximately USD 20,000, the error band in tank measurement (±1 to 3 tonnes per observation, cumulative over the voyage) can exceed the claimed amount. Small claims are best settled commercially rather than put to LMAA arbitration, where the procedural costs (registration fee, arbitrators’ fees, expert costs) will typically exceed the claim value.

See also

Calculators

• Speed–Power Cubic Fit
• Hull Performance ISO 19030
• Off-Hire Deduction
• Hire Off Calculator
• Voyage Slow Steaming Savings
• Charter Party Standard Form Pick

Related wiki articles

• Time Charter Party
• Off-Hire and Performance Claims
• NYPE 2015 Time Charter Form
• Slow Steaming
• Slow Steaming and CII
• Sea Trials and Performance Testing
• Marine Engine Performance Monitoring
• Engine Derating for Slow Steaming
• Bunker Quality and ISO 8217
• Sea Cargo Charter