The Claimants alleged a collision between their fishing vessel and the Defendants’ oil tanker; the Defendants contested the claim, denying any collision, the Claimants failed to provide the ordered security for costs and the claim was struck out by the Court. The Defendants then sought an order for costs against the Claimants’ solicitors, on the basis of an (admitted) misrepresentation they acted for both the fishing vessel and its H&M insurer. The Court found that the Defendants had indeed incurred defence costs which they would not have incurred had they known the true position and ordered the solicitors to pay the Defendants assessed wasted costs in the amount of GBP127,500.

Read the full judgement here.

A cargo of petcock cinder was found wetted in 4 holds, causing delay in discharge. The Tribunal had ruled that leaking and defective bilge system valves were to blame, and rejected Owners’ demurrage claim; Owners appealed under s68(2) (“serious irregularity”) on the basis (amongst others) that the Tribunal failed to comply with its general duty as its finding turned upon an unargued construction of a vessel defect list. Refusing the appeal, the Court held that a different interpretation from that of the parties is not an irregularity, particularly where this was not the Tribunal’s only reason for the finding, and nor was there any substantial injustice.

Read the full judgement here.

The Court held that the unauthorised removal from a marina of an arrested vessel constituted a clear and serious contempt of court, emphasising the importance of arrest orders. The Court proceeded in the defendant’s absence and found the contempt proved. While no sentence was imposed at that stage, the Court indicated that a custodial sentence would be a realistic outcome, subject to any mitigation or steps taken (namely return of the vessel) to purge the contempt.

Two bulk carriers, the KIVELI and AFINA I, collided off the south coast of Greece, causing substantial damage to both. The Admiralty judge found that the COLREGS 1972 applied and allocated primary fault to the KIVELI (80:20). CA considered the challenge as to whether the encounter qualified as a “head on” situation under Rule 41 but upheld the trial decision, confirming that full visibility of sidelights is not required, and that vessels on reciprocal or near-reciprocal courses fall within the Rule. The CA clarified that Rule 14 obligations continue until the collision risk ends and noted that nautical assessors are not appointed as a matter of course on appeals, requiring parties to justify their necessity and scope. The appeal was dismissed.

Read the full judgment here.

Buyers terminated ten shipbuilding contracts after the yard failed to procure refund guarantees within the contractual 120 day period. They also claimed loss of bargain damages. The arbitral tribunal held that the obligation was an innominate term, such that Owners were not entitled to loss of bargain damages in addition to cancellation. The Court dismissed Buyers’ section 69 appeal, ruling that the obligation was not a condition but an innominate term, the specific contractual right of cancellation being the remedy for such default.

Read the full judgment here.

Time Charterers relied on a WRC Report to justify deductions from hire for underperformance and overconsumption based on (i) extrapolated ‘good weather’ underperformance; alternatively (ii) a fouled hull on delivery. The Tribunal dismissed the former as it failed to recognise the C/P ‘adverse current’ parameter and the latter as Charterers’ survey was inconclusive. Charterers’ contention that  it was underperformance which caused Owners to incur regulatory costs under incorporated BIMCO emissions clauses (thus relieving Charterers from any reimbursement obligation) failed for the same reason.

Read the full judgment here.