“A London Tribunal has ruled that a claim for legal costs by itself is capable of succeeding under the Inter-Club Agreement (as it held that Clause 4 of the ICA included legal costs in the defence of the original claim), in contrast to an earlier decision on a similar point by another London tribunal.”

“Where the same agents acted for the shipowners, receivers and other parties in the contractual chain, the Court rejected an argument that the cargo was delivered to the agents on behalf of the shipowners, thus coming outside the terms of the Charterers' LOI; finding instead that the agents must have acted for the party to whom delivery had been requested under the LOI. “

“In a claim for an indemnity under the Inter-Club Agreement, it was held that the true construction of clause 8(d) and, in particular, the term "act" in the phrase "act or neglect", did not require fault. Therefore, Charterers' order not to discharge soya bean meal for over 4 months due to non-payment by receivers was considered an "act" within the ambit of clause 8(d), and Charterers were required to bear 100% of the claim.”

“Borrowers under a Facility Agreement financing the purchase of a vessel challenged the Lender's right to pursue its debt in the English Court— pursuant to a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause — on the basis that the Lender had already made an election in favour of a foreign court. The English Court upheld its jurisdiction finding that there was no clear election. Furthermore, the foreign proceedings — an attempt to enforce security after arrest of the vessel in India — were different in nature from the English ones. In any event, in common with many international financing transactions, the Agreement did not bar parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions.”

“The Court of Appeal has reversed a controversial first instance ruling and has held that it is not a pre-requisite for a carrier relying on the Article IV r2 (m) Hague Rules defence ('inherent vice') to disprove his negligence. Instead, once the carrier has shown an initial entitlement to rely on 'inherent vice', the burden then shifts to the cargo claimant to establish any negligence precluding reliance on the defence.”

“The Court found that the exclusion of "consequential or special losses, damages or expenses" in the Guarantee clause of a shipbuilding contract (on an amended SAJ form) was wide enough to cover financial losses beyond the replacement/repair of the physical damage.”