What is Detention in Ship Chartering? Charterers’ Delay, Demurrage, and Damages Explained

Detention in Voyage Charterparties

Commercial Function and Legal Character

Detention is the maritime law response to a delay for which the charterer, or a person for whom the charterer is legally responsible, must answer when the ordinary laytime and demurrage machinery does not provide a complete code. In practical chartering language, it is the financial consequence of keeping a ship from the service for which the shipowner was entitled to use it. The delay may occur while the ship is still on the approach voyage, during the carrying voyage, at the loading or discharging place, or after cargo work has already been completed. The essential question is not merely whether the ship was delayed, but whether that delay was caused by a charterer-side default and whether the charter gives a different contractual answer.

The distinction matters because detention is normally compensated by unliquidated damages, whereas demurrage is a pre-agreed sum payable once laytime has been exceeded during loading or discharging. Detention therefore requires a more factual inquiry. The tribunal or court must identify the breach, decide whether the breach actually caused the delay, and then measure the loss resulting from that delay. A charterer is not liable for time which would have been lost in any event. If the same waiting period would have occurred even without the charterer’s breach, the necessary causal link is absent or reduced.

Commercially, detention fills the gaps left by the conventional laytime code. A voyage charter allocates a defined period for cargo operations and usually fixes demurrage for delay beyond that period. But a voyage may be disrupted before the ship has reached the contractual destination, or after cargo work has ended, or by an order that requires the ship to wait outside the ordinary operation of the charter. In those situations, the demurrage clause may be irrelevant, exhausted, or not yet engaged. Detention then becomes the Shipowner’s route to compensation.

Although detention is often described as being in the nature of demurrage, the two concepts are not identical. Demurrage is a contractual rate attached to a particular stage of the adventure. Detention is a damages claim for delay caused by breach or default, unless the parties have themselves agreed a rate or mechanism for the relevant waiting time. The difference is more than academic. It affects pleading, proof, exceptions, liens, cesser clauses, and the amount recoverable.

The Relationship Between Detention and Demurrage

Demurrage and detention serve the same broad economic purpose: both compensate a shipowner for the loss of time. They differ in source and operation. Demurrage is payable because the charter has fixed a rate for a defined delay, usually after laytime expires. Detention is payable because ordinary damages are recoverable for delay caused by a breach or default that does not fall within the agreed demurrage regime.

Brett LJ’s description in Harris and Dixon v. Marcus Jacobs & Co of detention damages as a payment “in the nature of demurrage” captures the commercial similarity without collapsing the legal distinction. A shipowner claiming detention must still establish the breach, causation and recoverable loss. By contrast, a demurrage claim generally follows from the agreed laytime calculation once laytime has expired, subject to any applicable exceptions or special clauses.

The usual approach is that detention, like demurrage, is calculated by reference to running time. Laytime exceptions do not automatically reduce the claim. Demurrage exceptions also do not normally apply to detention unless the charter language is wide enough to cover damages claims outside the laytime and demurrage code. A strike exception that suspends laytime, for example, is not necessarily a defence to a detention claim unless the wording also excludes damages for the relevant delay.

The demurrage rate is often used as the practical measure of detention damages. This is not because demurrage and detention are the same thing, but because the agreed demurrage figure may be good evidence of the daily value that the parties placed on delay to the ship. In many cases, particularly where the delay is short and market evidence is sparse, the demurrage rate is the most workable benchmark. But it is not an automatic ceiling or floor unless the charter so provides.

Measuring the Loss: Market Evidence, Demurrage Rate and Bunkers

The measure of detention damages depends on the actual loss caused by the delay. The shipowner may try to show that the ship lost a follow-on fixture, that a later voyage was postponed, that market employment was missed, or that the delay extended the chartered adventure and therefore postponed the ship’s next commercial opportunity. Where the ship was steaming during the detention period, the calculation may also include additional bunkers consumed because of the charterer’s order or default.

The Boral Gas is a useful example of the flexible approach. Evans J recognised that the demurrage figure may be treated as an appropriate measure of unliquidated damages, but he also emphasised that the assessment is a matter of fact for the tribunal. The arbitrators in that case had to consider more than one possible approach: whether more demurrage would have been earned if the ship had proceeded without delay, whether the sequence of voyages would have finished earlier, or whether the actual loss should be assessed by reference to the delay that in fact occurred.

That analysis is important in multi-voyage or consecutive voyage arrangements. A delay early in the performance may not simply be a lost number of days in isolation. It may shift the whole programme, affect the redelivery position, alter the location of the ship when employment becomes available, or influence the market rate that could have been earned. Conversely, the delay may cause no real economic loss if the ship would have been waiting later in any event, or if the next employment was not affected.

In ordinary voyage charter disputes, the demurrage rate remains a common practical yardstick. It is familiar, agreed, easy to apply and commercially connected to the value of the ship’s time. Yet tribunals may be cautious where the demurrage rate is artificially high. Some fixtures are arranged on “Despatch Business”, where the demurrage rate is set at a high level even though the parties expect despatch to be earned rather than demurrage to be paid. In such a case, using the full demurrage rate for detention may overcompensate the Shipowner. A tribunal may therefore adjust the rate if the evidence shows that the contractual figure does not fairly represent the loss.

Where a ship is ordered to wait during the carrying voyage, or to steam an additional distance because of delayed or changed orders, bunkers are usually treated separately. The common commercial method is to calculate the additional time at an appropriate daily rate and then add the extra bunkers consumed, with allowance for the fact that ordinary harbour consumption may already be built into the demurrage rate. This method is not a substitute for proof, but it reflects how chartering claims are commonly evaluated.

Agreed Detention, Waiting Orders and Floating Storage

Not every detention situation is involuntary. In tanker and commodity trades, charterers sometimes ask owners to pause the voyage because sale arrangements are incomplete, documents are not ready, market prices are moving, or the cargo is being held as a commercial position. If the parties anticipate this possibility, the charter may contain a floating storage or waiting orders clause. Such a clause may permit the charterer to detain the ship for a stated number of days at an agreed daily rate, sometimes with bunkers included and sometimes with bunkers payable separately.

Where the parties expressly agree to such a regime, the clause may operate almost like a temporary time charter inside the voyage charter. During that period, the ship is being paid for waiting rather than for the loading or discharging operation. The rate may be described as detention, waiting time, storage hire, or compensation, but the legal effect depends on the wording. If the clause provides a complete code, the Shipowner will normally be confined to that code.

London Arbitration 12/90 illustrates the point. The charter contained a clause dealing with compensation for delay or deviation caused by late orders or changed orders, with payment at the demurrage rate. After loading, the ship was told to wait before the discharge port was nominated and then waited again before proceeding. The Shipowners argued that the market value of the ship was much higher than the contractual rate. The tribunal held that the clause was broad enough to cover the circumstances, so compensation was limited to the agreed basis.

This does not mean that every agreed delay is compensated at the demurrage rate. If the charterparty does not provide a rate and the waiting is outside the contractual adventure, the Shipowner may claim reasonable remuneration on a quantum meruit basis. The result may be higher or lower than demurrage depending on the market, the ship’s running costs, and the nature of the service actually performed.

Delay Before the Ship Reaches the Contractual Destination

Many detention claims arise before the ship has reached the place where laytime can begin. These claims are especially important because, at that stage, the charterer cannot usually say that unused laytime should absorb the delay. The ship is still in the voyage stage, and the laytime bargain has not yet begun to operate unless the charter expressly provides otherwise.

The Breynton demonstrates that not every pre-arrival delay caused by cargo arrangements is recoverable. The ship had loaded part cargo on the Danube and then loaded further cargo by lighterage at Constantza after crossing the bar. The Shipowner claimed detention because the cargo came from Constantza rather than from upriver places. The court rejected the claim. The charter allowed lighterage in substance, and the delay and cost associated with transferring cargo from lighters fell on the Shipowner under the commercial arrangement. The case shows that a detention claim cannot be built merely from inconvenience where the charter has allocated the relevant operation to the Shipowner.

In Mikkelsen v. Arcos Ltd, by contrast, the ship arrived at one destination and was then ordered onward to another. The Shipowner recovered reasonable remuneration not only for the additional voyage but also for the period during which the cargo remained on board while arrangements were made. The decision reflects a basic principle: where the charterer’s change of instructions requires the owner to provide a service not covered by the agreed freight, the Shipowner may be paid for the use of the ship during that additional period.

Older “call for orders” cases are also relevant. Before instant ship communications became standard, a charter might require the ship to call at an intermediate port and await further orders. Such clauses often allowed a short free period and then specified damages for delay. In Ethel Radcliffe Steamship Co Ltd v. W R Barnett Ltd, the charterers deliberately delayed giving orders because their sale arrangements were incomplete. Although the conduct was deliberate, the court held that the agreed liquidated damages still governed unless and until the owner accepted the conduct as repudiatory. Deliberate delay did not automatically convert the claim into damages at large.

Berth Charters, Dock Charters and the Duty to Enable Arrival

A particularly important category of pre-arrival detention concerns berth and dock charters. If the contractual destination is a berth or dock, the ship has not arrived for laytime purposes until it reaches that place. But if the charterer’s own default prevents the ship from getting there, the owner may have a detention claim.

Owners of Panaghis Vergottis v. William Cory & Son concerned a ship fixed to load at Barry Dock. The ship could not enter the dock because the shipper had not made the necessary proportion of cargo available, as required by the dock authority. Greer J treated the charter as containing an implied obligation requiring the charterers to take reasonable steps to allow the ship to become an arrived ship. The failure to make cargo available therefore supported a detention claim.

The same commercial principle appears in Samuel Crawford Hogarth v. Cory Brothers & Co Ltd, where the ship was kept out of berth at Calcutta for an extended period because cargo was not ready. The Privy Council held that, where the charterer’s default or obstacle prevents the ship from reaching the loading berth, the owner has done what is required to bring the ship to the loading place. The charterer must answer for the resulting delay.

This principle should not be overstated. A charterer under a berth charter is not necessarily required to berth ships strictly in order of arrival unless the charter, port regulations or a specific duty imposes that obligation. Commercial preference, terminal planning or port sequencing may not of itself amount to detention. The key is whether the delay is caused by a breach of duty owed by the charterer, not merely by the fact that the ship was kept waiting.

Late Nomination of Loading or Discharging Ports

Delayed nomination of a port is one of the clearest sources of detention. If the charterer is required to nominate a loading or discharging place and fails to do so in time for the ship to proceed efficiently, the resulting loss of time may be recoverable. The Shipowner must, however, show that the delay was caused by the failure to give effective orders.

The Timna is central. The ship carried grain from Norfolk, Virginia, to European ports. Part of the cargo was for Bremen, while the destination for the remaining cargo had not been finally named. On approach to the River Weser, the charterers failed to provide a firm order. The master went to Bremerhaven, but the charterers later said the ship was intended for Brake. The ship waited for further orders. Donaldson J rejected the demurrage claim because the ship was not an arrived ship at Bremerhaven, but the detention claim succeeded. The Court of Appeal confirmed that a discharge order must be firm; uncertainty is not enough.

When late orders force a ship to reverse course, deviate from the direct route, or steam additional miles, compensation is usually calculated by comparing the actual track with the route that would have been followed had orders been given in time. The additional steaming time is then valued, commonly by reference to the demurrage rate or another appropriate daily rate, with additional bunkers added. This method is particularly common in tanker claims where discharge options are left open until the final stage of the voyage.

Late nomination may also create downstream port consequences. A ship requiring tugs, pilots, terminal approval or advance notice may lose a berthing opportunity if the discharge port is nominated too late. For example, a large tanker may need substantial notice before arrival at an oil terminal so that adequate tugs and shore arrangements can be prepared. Whether the resulting waiting is detention or ordinary laytime/demurrage depends on the type of charter and the point at which the ship has reached its contractual destination.

Reachable on Arrival and the Boundary Between Voyage and Laytime

The boundary between detention and laytime becomes difficult where a ship is waiting near the port but has not reached the berth. In “reachable on arrival” cases, the owner may argue that the charterer’s undertaking has been breached because the berth was not available when the ship arrived. The charterer may answer that unused laytime should first be applied.

The Delian Spirit, The Angelos Lusis and The President Brand demonstrate the tension. In some circumstances, courts have allowed a damages claim for breach of a reachable on arrival obligation without requiring unused laytime to absorb the delay, particularly where the ship has not yet reached the stage at which laytime can operate. Sir Gordon Willmer in The Delian Spirit expressed caution about allowing an independent damages claim without credit for laytime if the ship had not been an arrived ship, but earlier authorities support the Shipowner’s position where the delay belongs to the voyage stage rather than cargo operations.

The commercial reason is straightforward. Freight pays for the voyage and for the agreed laytime at the contractual destination. If laytime could be used to absorb voyage-stage delay caused by charterer breach, the distinction between the carrying voyage and cargo operations would be weakened. The House of Lords in The Maratha Envoy resisted an approach that would blur the concept of the arrived ship under a port charter, and the same concern supports keeping voyage-stage detention separate from laytime unless the charter says otherwise.

Shipowners must not, however, manufacture detention artificially. London Arbitration 15/01 shows that a Shipowner cannot create a detention claim by serving a notice of arrival instead of a valid Notice of Readiness (NOR) where the ship is already at a place from which a notice of readiness could properly be tendered and the necessary steps toward berthing are not the owner’s responsibility. Once the ship can validly trigger the laytime machinery, the owner’s remedy is generally to do so.

Cargo Preparation, Pre-Cooling and Other Conditions Precedent

Some charters require cargo-related preparation before Notice of Readiness (NOR) can be validly tendered. In The Boral Gas, the ship was fixed for consecutive voyages carrying anhydrous ammonia. Before loading, purging and pre-cooling were required, and the shippers were to supply ammonia for that purpose. Because the ammonia was not provided within a reasonable period, the ship was kept waiting before Notice of Readiness (NOR) could be given.

Evans J held that the charterers were responsible under the express terms of the charter for procuring the necessary ammonia from the shippers within a reasonable time after receiving the ship’s requirements. The delay therefore gave rise to a detention claim, though the assessment of damages required further consideration. The case is commercially significant because it shows that a charterer may be liable even before laytime begins where a cargo-side precondition prevents the ship from becoming ready in the contractual sense.

Shipowners should protect themselves in such cases by giving clear and timely notice of technical requirements before arrival where possible. If the charterer’s obligation is only to procure the necessary material within a reasonable time after notice, late or unclear notice from the ship may weaken the claim. Detention claims often turn as much on documentation and timing as on legal principle.

Documents, Bills of Lading (B/L) and Instructions Not to Proceed

Cargo documents often create detention disputes. If Original Bills of Lading (B/L) are unavailable, if Letters of Indemnity (LOI) are contested, or if charterers instruct a ship not to berth pending sale or document issues, the legal result depends on who gave the order and whether the shipowner acted reasonably.

London Arbitration 11/03 shows the limits of a Shipowner’s claim. The Shipowner refused to allow the ship to enter the port because original bills of lading were not available. The tribunal held that there was no need to keep the ship outside the port, so the detention claim failed. By contrast, in The Mass Glory, the charterers themselves ordered the ship not to proceed to berth because of cargo-document problems. Since the order came from the charterer and prevented the ship from completing the voyage stage, the Shipowner was entitled to damages for detention, subject to issues of quantum.

The lesson is practical. If the Shipowner delays the ship for self-protection without contractual necessity, the Shipowner may struggle to recover. If the charterer instructs the delay, or if the delay flows from charterer-side document default, the claim is much stronger. In all cases, the Ship Master’s conduct must be reasonable, especially where inaccurate Bills of Lading (B/L), clausing disputes or indemnity demands are involved.

Exercise of Liens During the Carrying Voyage

A shipowner may sometimes interrupt the voyage to exercise a lien for unpaid freight or other secured sums. The question is whether the resulting delay can be treated as detention caused by the charterer’s default. The answer depends on whether the lien was lawfully and reasonably exercised, whether exercise at the discharge port would have been practical, and whether the Shipowner can show actual loss.

London Arbitration 13/87 concerned a coal cargo where freight had not been paid. The ship was off Port Said after transiting the Suez Canal when the owners ordered the ship to anchor. They had been advised that exercising the lien in Turkey was legally possible but commercially impractical. The arbitrators accepted that the charterers’ failure to pay freight detained the ship, even though the immediate order to anchor was given by the Shipowner. The award indicates that a lien may be exercised short of the discharge port where waiting until discharge would deprive the lien of practical value.

The Chrysovalandou Dyo, although arising in the time charter context, supports a similar commercial approach. Mocatta J rejected the suggestion that a lien could only be exercised when there was an actual demand for possession at the place of discharge. Such a narrow view would greatly reduce the usefulness of a lien. The same reasoning can apply in voyage charter cases, provided the Shipowner acts within the contractual and legal limits.

But a lien-related delay does not automatically produce recoverable detention. London Arbitration 12/91 shows that Shipowners must prove loss. If the ship would have completed the voyage at the same time even without the interruption, or if no follow-on employment is affected, the claim may fail. The Shipowner must connect the delay to a real commercial loss.

Delay After Arrival While Laytime Remains Available

Once the ship has reached the contractual destination and can tender a valid Notice of Readiness (NOR), a different rule normally applies. If the charterer’s breach causes delay during the period when laytime is still available, the charterer is generally entitled to use that laytime to absorb the delay. The Shipowner cannot usually reject the laytime code and claim detention instead.

This principle was clearly stated in The Delian Spirit. Lord Denning explained that charterers have paid for their laytime through freight and may use it in the way most advantageous to them, including to reduce or extinguish a delay claim that would otherwise arise from their breach. Only once the delay exceeds the laytime allowance does demurrage become payable, if the charter provides for it.

The same logic appears in Inverkip Steamship Co Ltd v. Bunge & Co, where Scrutton LJ rejected the argument that failure to have cargo ready deprived the charterer of laytime or demurrage days. Ships frequently wait because cargo is not ready; that does not mean the charterer loses the contractual time bought under the charter. In The President Brand, Roskill J emphasised that very clear words would be required to deprive charterers of laytime expressly granted by the contract.

The principle extends beyond charterparty disputes. In The World Navigator, a sale contract dispute involving an FOB (Free On Board) cargo, the buyers claimed damages because the nominated ship had been delayed by documentary problems. The Court of Appeal held that the sellers were entitled to the benefit of the laytime period under the sale contract. Since loading would have been completed within that period even if the ship had berthed earlier, the buyers suffered no recoverable detention loss.

London Arbitration 16/05, involving a ship-to-ship transfer, states the modern position in practical terms. If the ship cannot give a valid Notice of Readiness (NOR) because it has not reached the specified destination, damages may be available. But if the ship has reached a place from which notice can properly be given, the Shipowner must use the laytime machinery. The Shipowner does not have a free election between detention and laytime.

Contrasting New York and London Approaches

Some New York awards have taken a more Shipowner-friendly view where the delay results from the charterer’s failure to procure cargo release or satisfy cargo-side requirements. The Sugar Islander is a prominent example. The ship tendered Notice of Readiness (NOR) at the opening of the laycan, but the terminal refused to call the ship forward because Letters of Credit (L/C) were not in place. The tribunal treated the delay as resulting from charterer breach rather than as ordinary laytime delay and awarded detention damages.

That reasoning has commercial appeal because a charterer who has failed to arrange cargo release may appear to have caused a delay outside the normal risks of cargo operations. Under English law, however, the outcome would likely be different if the ship had reached a place where a valid Notice of Readiness (NOR) could be tendered and laytime could run. The English approach gives priority to the laytime bargain unless the charterparty clearly separates the breach from the laytime code or the delay occurs outside the stage to which laytime applies.

Delay While the Ship Is Already on Demurrage

If laytime has expired and the ship is on demurrage, detention normally has little independent role during continuing loading or discharging. Demurrage is liquidated damages for the delay beyond laytime. It is intended to be the agreed compensation for the detention of the ship during the cargo operation. The Shipowner cannot ordinarily recover a separate detention claim for the same loss simply by characterising the delay in another way.

This principle reflects the exclusivity of liquidated damages. Once the parties have agreed the daily price of delay after laytime, that price normally governs the continuing delay until cargo operations end, unless the Shipowner can show an additional and independent breach causing a different kind of loss. Even then, the Shipowner must be careful not to recover twice for the same period of lost time.

The practical effect is that disputes during demurrage usually concern whether demurrage exceptions apply, whether the rate is reduced by a half-rate clause, whether time is excluded because of Shipowner fault, or whether a separate breach has produced a separate loss. They do not usually become detention claims.

Delay After Laytime, After Demurrage or After Cargo Work

Detention becomes important again when the laytime and demurrage regime no longer covers the delay. In a customary laytime charter, demurrage is often absent. Since customary laytime is measured by what is reasonable in the circumstances, the Shipowner’s claim is for detention only if loading or discharging has been unreasonably extended by charterer-side default. In a fixed laytime charter that allows demurrage only for a limited period, detention may arise after the agreed demurrage period has expired.

Detention also arises where cargo operations have finished but the ship is kept from sailing by something for which the charterer is responsible. The end of loading or discharging usually stops laytime. If further delay follows because documents are not ready, export permission has not been obtained, bills of lading are disputed, surveys are ordered, or inspectors are not disembarked, the Shipowner may have a detention claim depending on the allocation of responsibility.

Lyle Shipping Co Ltd v. Corporation of Cardiff illustrates the limits of the claim in a customary laytime setting. Cargo was to be discharged into railway wagons at Cardiff. The receivers arranged for wagons in the usual way, but the railway company failed to supply enough because of heavy work. The Court of Appeal held that the receivers had done what was customary and reasonable at the port. The delay was part of the ordinary port risk under that charter, not a default giving rise to detention.

Owners of the Steamship Nolisement v. Bunge and Born is different. Loading finished well before laytime expired, but the charterers delayed providing bills of lading and destination orders because they had not decided where the ship should go. The court held that charterers could not detain the ship merely because laytime remained unused. Once loading was complete, they had to present Bills of Lading (B/L) and orders within a reasonable time. The Shipowner recovered damages for the unreasonable delay, while the charterers retained any despatch already earned for quick loading.

Export Licences, Clearance and Reasonable Diligence

Where a further official step is needed after loading or discharge, liability depends on the nature of the charterer’s obligation. In the Spanish Steamship Sebastian case, coal loaded in the United States could not be exported to Spain without a licence introduced after the charter was made. The licence was obtained after loading, and the ship was delayed. Bailhache J held that the charterers were obliged to obtain the licence without unreasonable delay, but the arbitrators had found that they had done all that was necessary. The delay therefore fell on the Shipowner.

The broader principle is that, where the charterer must take a post-cargo-operation step to allow the ship to sail, the charterer must act with reasonable diligence. The charterer is not usually required to take extraordinary measures unless the charterparty says so. The Atlantic Sunbeam supports that restrained approach: a charterer is not generally bound to use special procedures, expedition fees or exceptional initiatives unless an express term imposes that obligation.

The same reasoning applies to customs clearance, cargo certificates, inspection formalities and local authorisations. If the charterer or cargo interests take reasonable steps and the delay is caused by the authorities or normal administrative processes, detention may fail. If the delay is caused by inaction, inaccurate documentation, failure to pay, or unreasonable refusal to cooperate, detention may succeed.

Bills of Lading (B/L), Surveys, Fumigation and Inspectors

Disputes over Bills of Lading (B/L) can detain a ship after loading. In The Boukadora, the charterers presented inaccurate cargo figures and refused to accept the ship master’s qualification. Evans J held that the indemnity provision in the STB Voy form covered the delay caused by the presentation of inaccurate figures, and the charterers were liable. The decision also underlines the importance of the master acting reasonably when rejecting or qualifying figures.

Draft surveys may also create detention. London Arbitration 6/92 concerned delay while a draft survey was carried out after loading. Since the survey had been arranged and paid for by the charterers, and laytime had ended on completion of loading, the tribunal treated the resulting delay as the charterers’ responsibility.

Fumigation cases require careful attention to the clause. In London Arbitration 33/04, the charterparty allowed fumigation at loading and discharge ports at the charterers’ risk and expense, with time to count, but a further provision allowed fumigation between, during or after cargo operations without clearly saying how time would count. Fumigation after loading took about two hours, but the Shipowner claimed a much longer period because the ship missed the tide. The tribunal allowed detention only for the fumigation period itself, calculated at the demurrage rate. The tidal consequence remained the owners’ risk.

Cargo inspectors can raise similar questions. In London Arbitration 18/07, the ship was delayed because no launch was available to land a fish inspector. The charterers argued that the ship master should have arranged the launch. The tribunal found no express term and no sufficiently proved custom imposing that duty on the ship master. Matters connected with cargo inspectors were for the charterers, and the Shipowners recovered detention from the time the ship was otherwise free to sail.

Shifting Between Loading Ports and Return Orders

A ship may also be detained by unusual loading instructions. In London Arbitration 21/00, the ship waited at the first loading port without cargo, was ordered to a second loading port, completed loading there, and was then ordered back to the first port when cargo became available. The tribunal awarded demurrage for the shifting time back to the first port. Analytically, however, the better view is that the claim should be treated as detention at the demurrage rate or as additional freight, because the ship was performing an additional movement caused by charterer instructions rather than merely waiting under the laytime code.

This distinction matters because it prevents the demurrage label from being used too broadly. Demurrage is tied to the agreed cargo-operation period. When the ship is required to undertake an additional passage or return movement, the more accurate analysis is usually detention, deviation compensation or additional remuneration, depending on the wording of the charter.

Delay by Agreement and Quantum Meruit

When the parties (Shipowner and Charterer) agree that the ship should wait outside the ordinary charter service, the Shipowner’s claim may be based not on breach but on an implied promise to pay reasonable remuneration. The Saronikos is the leading illustration. The ship was fixed to carry bagged sugar from Antwerp to Aqaba. At the charterers’ request, the ship waited off Aqaba for about nine days because problems had arisen in the sale of the cargo.

The parties accepted that the Shipowner was entitled to be paid; the dispute concerned the measure. The arbitrators awarded only extra bunkers, reasoning that the ship would not have earned demurrage at Aqaba even if she had proceeded directly. Saville J rejected that approach. Drawing on Steven v. Bromley & Son, he distinguished damages for breach from remuneration for a service outside the charterparty. Where the charterer requests an additional service, the Shipowner may be entitled to a fair commercial rate, including running costs, bunkers and a profit element.

The consequence is important. A voluntary agreed detention may sometimes produce a higher recovery than an involuntary detention claim, because the basis is not compensation for loss but reasonable payment for the use of the ship. The exact result depends on the parties’ communications, the charter terms, the market position and whether the waiting was truly outside the original contractual bargain.

Exception Clauses and Detention

Laytime exceptions and demurrage exceptions do not automatically defeat detention claims. A clause that stops laytime during bad weather, strikes or port interruption may have no application to damages for delay before arrival or after cargo operations. To exclude detention, the wording must be broad enough to cover damages claims for the relevant delay.

Moor Line Ltd v. Distillers Co Ltd shows that sufficiently wide words can be effective. The charter provided that, in case of delay by reason of strike, “no claim for damages” should be made. The Scottish court treated demurrage and detention as claims in respect of delay and in the nature of damages. Such wording is wide enough, provided the required causal link between the excepted event and the delay is established.

The drafting lesson is clear. If charterers wish to exclude liability for detention, they should not rely on ordinary laytime exceptions. The clause should refer expressly to detention, damages, delay, deviation, waiting time and any other relevant category. If Shipowners wish to preserve detention claims, they should ensure that exception wording is confined to laytime or demurrage and does not extend to damages generally.

Liens, Cesser Clauses and Detention Claims

A lien for demurrage does not normally include a lien for detention. Although detention and demurrage are commercially related, they are legally distinct. If the charterparty gives the Shipowner a lien over cargo for Freight (F) and Demurrage (D), that wording will not usually secure unliquidated damages for detention unless the charterparty clearly says so.

This principle has been affirmed in a series of cases including Gray v. Carr, Lockhart v. Falk, Gardiner v. Macfarlane, Clink v. Radford & Co and Dunlop & Sons v. Balfour, Williamson & Co. In Clink v. Radford & Co, Lord Esher MR treated “demurrage” as referring to demurrage as used in the charter, not to detention at the loading port. The owner therefore had no lien for that detention claim.

A possible qualification was suggested in Dunlop & Sons v. Balfour, Williamson & Co. Lord Esher MR observed that if there were nothing else in the charterparty to which the word demurrage could apply, a court might possibly construe the lien more broadly. But where the charterparty contains ordinary demurrage to which the lien can naturally attach, the court will not extend the word to cover unliquidated detention damages.

The same distinction affects cesser clauses. A cesser clause normally releases the charterer only to the extent that the Shipowner has an effective lien replacing the charterer’s liability. If the lien is only for demurrage and the claim is truly detention, the cesser clause may not protect the charterer. The Shipowner is not expected to give up an in personam claim without receiving a corresponding security over the cargo.

Causation: The Question of Time That Would Have Been Lost Anyway

A detention claim is not established merely by showing that the charterer was in breach and that the ship was delayed. The Shipowner must also show that the breach caused a period of loss which would not otherwise have been suffered. This is one of the main differences between a straightforward demurrage claim and a detention claim. Demurrage follows from the contractual calculation once laytime has expired; detention requires a factual comparison between what happened and what would probably have happened if the charterer had performed correctly.

This “but for” analysis can be decisive. If the ship is instructed to wait outside a port, but evidence shows that the berth would not have been available during the same period in any event, the recoverable loss may be reduced or extinguished. Similarly, if a lien is exercised during the voyage but the ship would have reached a congested berth queue and completed at the same time, the Shipowner may struggle to prove that the interruption caused a recoverable loss. The point is not whether the charterer behaved badly in the abstract, but whether the shipowner lost time that had commercial value.

Causation also becomes difficult where several factors operate together. A late port nomination may be followed by weather, port congestion, pilotage restrictions or terminal unavailability. A document dispute may occur at the same time as an independent port closure. In those situations, a tribunal will ask which cause actually delayed the ship and for how long. If the charterer’s breach was only one of several contributing causes, the tribunal may make an apportionment or may hold that the owner has not proved the claimed period.

Shipowners therefore need contemporaneous evidence. A claim framed only by reference to the demurrage rate and a number of calendar days may be vulnerable. The stronger claim will identify the time when the ship would have proceeded, the berth or route that would have been available, the orders that should have been given, the cargo or documents that should have been ready, and the commercial employment lost because the ship was not released.

Drafting Detention Clauses in Modern Chartering Practice

Modern charterparties increasingly deal expressly with situations that earlier cases treated through implication or damages. Waiting for orders, storage at sea, late nomination, cargo sampling, document delays, deviation for charterers’ purposes and port rotation changes can all be addressed in the printed form or rider clauses. The more precise the clause, the less room there is for argument over whether the claim is demurrage, detention, damages at large, additional freight or remuneration for an extra service.

A well-drafted waiting orders clause should state when the waiting period begins, where the ship may wait, who selects or approves the waiting place, whether the time counts continuously, whether weather or port restrictions interrupt the count, and whether bunkers are included in the daily rate. It should also say whether the rate applies before the ship is an arrived ship, after completion of loading, during the carrying voyage, or after arrival off the discharge port. Ambiguity in these matters is a common source of disputes.

For floating storage, the parties should decide whether the Shipowner is merely compensated for delay or whether the charterer obtains a broader right to use the ship as storage. The answer may affect insurance, safe place obligations, cargo care, heating, inert gas, tank cleaning, crew requirements, port-state issues and the Shipowner’s right to refuse a prolonged wait. In liquid cargo trades, floating storage can also create technical risks: temperature maintenance, cargo ageing, vapour management, compatibility, sedimentation and pumping performance may all become relevant.

If the parties intend the demurrage rate to be the detention rate, the clause should say so expressly. If the rate is to be different, the clause should specify the amount and whether it is inclusive of bunkers, port costs, agency fees, war-risk costs, canal dues, additional insurance and other expenses. If the rate is to reflect market hire, the benchmark should be identified. Without such drafting, the parties may find themselves arguing over market evidence after the event, when no clean comparison fixture exists.

Clauses dealing with late nomination should also be specific. A charterer may be required to nominate the discharge port a stated number of days or nautical miles before arrival at a named waypoint. The clause should identify the consequence of late nomination: compensation at the demurrage rate, additional bunkers, damages at large, or a right for the master to proceed to an alternative place. If the owner is to have a right to slow steam, wait, drift or anchor while awaiting orders, that should be stated expressly.

Operational Evidence and Claim Presentation

Detention claims are document-heavy. The strongest file normally includes the charterparty and riders, voyage orders, notices of readiness, Statement of Fact (SOF), port logs, deck logs, engine logs, noon reports, bunker consumption records, emails requesting and receiving orders, agency messages, terminal communications, Bills of Lading (B/L) exchanges, letters of protest and evidence of the next employment. If the claim involves market loss, fixture evidence and shipbroker evidence may also be necessary.

The Statement of Fact (SOF) is particularly important, but it may not be enough by itself. Detention often occurs before laytime begins or after it ends, so the standard laytime statement may not capture the crucial period. Shipowners should make sure that waiting outside the port, drifting, anchoring, slow steaming, shifting, missing a tide, waiting for documents, awaiting inspectors or holding for orders are recorded clearly and contemporaneously. A later reconstruction may be challenged as self-serving.

Letters of protest should be used carefully. A protest that merely complains of delay may be less useful than one that identifies the contractual obligation breached, records the time lost, reserves the owner’s rights to damages for detention, and asks for immediate instructions or corrective action. The tone should remain commercial and factual. Excessive or inaccurate protest letters can weaken the claim if later evidence contradicts them.

Charterers should also create a record. If the charterer contends that the ship would have been delayed anyway, that evidence should be preserved: berth line-up, port circulars, terminal restrictions, weather reports, pilotage records, cargo availability records and communications with shippers or receivers. If the charterer says the Shipowner acted unreasonably by waiting outside port, refusing to berth, exercising a lien or declining a document proposal, that position should be stated promptly rather than after the claim is presented.

Commercial Examples of Detention Calculations

A simple late nomination case may be calculated by comparing the actual voyage with the voyage that would have occurred had the charterer nominated on time. If the ship steamed 200 nautical miles more than necessary and lost 18 hours, the claim may include 18 hours at the agreed detention or demurrage-equivalent rate plus the additional bunkers consumed during the extra steaming. If the ship also missed a berthing window because of the late nomination, the additional waiting may be included if causation is proved.

A post-loading document delay is different. Suppose loading is completed at 1800 on Tuesday, the charter allows two hours for ordinary documents, and the ship is not released until 1000 on Wednesday because the charterer has not provided acceptable Bills of Lading (B/L). The detention period is unlikely to begin at completion of loading if the charter or trade practice allows a short document period. It would normally begin after the reasonable or agreed free period has expired and continue until the ship is free to sail.

A floating storage case is different again. If the charterer requests the ship to wait outside the discharge port for ten days while sale arrangements are completed, and the owner agrees without fixing a rate, the owner may claim reasonable remuneration rather than ordinary damages. That may include running costs, bunkers and a commercial profit element if the facts justify a quantum meruit claim. If the charter already contains a storage rate, however, that rate will usually control.

A customary laytime case requires a different analysis. The Shipowner must show not merely that discharge took longer than expected, but that it took longer than was reasonable in the circumstances and that the excess was caused by the charterer or cargo interests. Congestion, shortage of customary equipment, ordinary port practice and neutral administrative delay may all fall outside charterer default unless the charter allocates those risks differently.

Detention and Bills of Lading (B/L)

Claims against receivers or Bill of Lading (B/L) Holders require special care. A charterer may be liable under the charterparty, but a receiver is liable only if the contract of carriage, incorporation wording, statute or conduct creates the relevant obligation. London Arbitration 11/06 shows that, where Bills of Lading (B/L) clearly incorporate obligations as to the time within which cargo must be loaded or discharged, shipowners may recover detention damages from receivers even if the demurrage provisions themselves are not incorporated. The claim is then framed as damages for breach of the incorporated time obligation rather than demurrage under the charterparty.

The distinction is important. A Bill of Lading (B/L) Holder may not be liable for charterparty demurrage merely because a lien or incorporation clause exists. But if the Bill of Lading (B/L) brings in clear obligations governing the cargo operation, and the receiver’s failure to perform those obligations delays the ship, detention may be recoverable. The amount may still be assessed by reference to the demurrage rate if that is the best available measure, but the legal foundation remains damages for detention.

Where multiple Bill of Lading (B/L) and multiple receivers are involved, the Shipowner should identify which cargo interest caused the delay, whether the obligation was several or collective, and whether the delay occurred before or after the particular receiver’s cargo was available or discharged. A broad claim against all cargo interests may fail if the evidence does not connect the delay to the party sued.

Practical Guidance for Shipowners, Charterers and Shipbrokers

Detention disputes are often won or lost on records. Shipowners should issue timely notices, identify the contractual destination, record when orders were requested and received, preserve evidence of additional steaming, bunker consumption and lost employment, and avoid unnecessary delay caused by their own caution. If claiming at the demurrage rate, Shipowners should explain why that rate is a reasonable measure of the loss or why the charter makes it applicable.

Charterers should examine whether the ship had reached a place where Notice of Readiness (NOR) could have been given, whether unused laytime can absorb the alleged delay, whether the same waiting would have occurred in any event, whether the owner acted reasonably, and whether the claim is really for demurrage, detention, additional freight or quantum meruit. They should also check whether any exception clause extends to damages rather than merely laytime.

Shipbrokers and contract drafters can reduce uncertainty by using precise language. If waiting for orders is to be paid at the demurrage rate, say so. If additional bunkers are payable, say whether they are included or extra. If floating storage is permitted, state the maximum period, rate, bunker treatment, place of waiting and whether the ship remains under voyage charter terms. If a lien is intended to cover detention, the lien clause should expressly refer to damages for detention, not merely demurrage.

The central principle is that detention is not a substitute for a poor demurrage claim. Detention is a separate remedy for a different legal situation: delay caused by charterer-side default outside, or beyond, the ordinary laytime and demurrage machinery. Properly used, Detention protects the Shipowner against loss of time that the charter did not price. Improperly used, it risks double recovery or an attempt to bypass laytime that the charterer has already bought through freight.

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Ship Chartering www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Dry Cargo Chartering Market www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Dry Bulk Cargo Trades www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Shipping Raw Materials www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Bulk Carrier Ship Sizes www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Ship Manager www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Ship Ownership www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Shipping Demand www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Shipping Supply www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about What is Demurrage in Shipping? www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about What is Despatch in Shipping? Despatch Money, Laytime, and Demurrage Explained www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Interruptions and Exceptions to Laytime www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Fixed Laytime www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Customary Laytime www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about When Laytime Starts? www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Laytime and Demurrage: General Principles www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Laytime Calculations www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about What is Laytime? www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Laytime www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Port Services www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about What is Bareboat Charterparty? www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about What is the difference between Bareboat Charter and Demise Charter?  www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Ship Finance: Ship Loans, Mortgages, Equity, Leasing, and Maritime Finance Explained www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Ship Management: Technical Management, Crew Management, SHIPMAN, Port Agents, and Shipowner Responsibilities Explained www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Ship Registration: Flag State, Certificate of Registry, Open Registry, and Ship Ownership Explained www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Ship Types, Tonnage, Measurements, Cargo Capacity, and Ship Layout Explained www.handybulk.com

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about What is Detention in Ship Chartering? Charterers’ Delay, Demurrage, and Damages Explained www.handybulk.com