Following a collision off Ireland between the laden, 620,000 GRT bulk carrier “Hua Sheng Hai” and the 320 GRT fishing vessel “Kirrixki”, the Irish Court found that “Kirrixki” failed to keep a (or any) look out; she was not (as claimed) lowering nets but slow-steaming to new waters, then suddenly changed course and accelerated just prior to the collision. She was not the stand-on vessel, but in any event was in breach of Colregs for not holding her course and speed, and was the major cause of the collision. “Hua Sheng Hai” whilst not required to change course, nevertheless failed to take timely action to avoid unexpected and sudden danger. Liability was set at 85% “Kirrixki” 15% “Hua Sheng Hai”.

M as disponent owner, chartered the Vessel to S, under an NYPE subject to English law and London Arbitration. S provided bunkers to the Vessel, but failed to pay the supplier who was ultimately paid by M, to avoid Vessel arrest. S had sub-chartered to O (a Singaporean company), who had incurred demurrage. To recoup its bunker payment, M served on O a notice of its NYPE Cl.18 lien “on sub-freights… demurrages… for any amounts due under this Charter”. S asserted that no amounts were due to M under the T/C. The Singapore Court upheld M’s lien, ruling that third party demurrage fell within its ambit and the bunker payment constituted an amount “due under this Charter”; whilst the dispute between M and S was referrable to London Arbitration, that did not preclude M exercising its lien against O and enforcing it in the Singapore Court.

Under hire purchase agreements relating to high-end cars, the Defendants defaulted on their scheduled payments to the Claimants. The Claimants issued warnings as to reliance on the contractual termination clause, then entered negotiations but ultimately terminated - without intimating that negotiations had ended. Dismissing the Defendants’ case based on waiver or estoppel (specifically forbearance) the Court held that there was neither agreement nor unequivocal representation by the Claimants not to enforce their termination rights (nor any reliance by the Defendants).

Under an amended NYPE 93 C/P, Charterers ceased paying hire alleging that whilst crew members were testing Covid-positive, the Vessel was off-hire. The C/P provided that no hire deductions were permissible without Owners' written agreement. The Court, on appeal, upheld the Tribunal's ruling that Owners reasonably withheld permission and that the deduction was wrongful. Hire remained payable even if it might later be determined or agreed that the Vessel was indeed off-hire.

Norwegian Havila group commissioned the building of 4 vessels financed by sale and lease-back arrangements with the Defendants, who were Irish-registered, indirect subsidiaries of a Russian state-owned entity. The Defendants relied on consequences flowing from the imposition of EU Sanctions as constituting contractual Termination Events, requiring “immediate” payment by Havila of Termination Sums; in the absence of such payment, the Defendants invoked contractual Enforcement Events, allowing foreclosure. The Court ruled that there were Termination (not Enforcement) Events and that payment of Termination Sums to the Defendants’ nominated, but frozen, account would constitute good discharge of Havila’s obligations.

The Tribunal held the claims against the carrier for misdelivery after cargo discharge were time-barred by Art. III r.6 of the Hague Visby Rules. The Claimant (financiers and B/L holders) argued the Rules only applied to the sea voyage, not misdelivery from storage, and that the time-bar immunity ended when the cargo was discharged. The High court dismissed the appeal (s.69) and upheld the Tribunal’s award. Most deliveries take place after discharge, and outside of carrier’s control, and it would be odd if the critical distinction for time bar purposes depended on the timing of delivery. Such an interpretation was consistent with the objective of finality and to allow a carrier to “close his books”.