Case Summaries
Moeve Trading SAU v Mael Trading FZ LLC [2026] EWHC 17 (Comm)
Moeve sold gasoline and gasoil to Mael on FOB Algeciras terms, with payment due 60 days after shipment under confirmed letters of credit (LCs). The cargo was shipped and discharged, but the issuing bank refused payment. Moeve sued for the price under S.49 Sale of Goods Act 1979. The Buyer argued that arranging the LCs discharged its payment obligation and raised a counterclaim for demurrage and delay. The Court rejected those arguments, holding that title had passed, the Buyer had received the cargo, the LCs were not payment, and the counterclaim was time-barred and excluded. The Seller obtained summary judgment, and the Court refused the Buyer’s application for a stay of execution.
Read the full judgment here.
London Arbitration 1/26
Charterers claimed off-hire and a deduction from hire under a time charter trip, alleging that hull fouling on delivery reduced the vessel’s speed and performance and citing The Divinegate. Owners resisted the claim, arguing that the performance warranty was not engaged because there was insufficient “good weather” data within the meaning of the charterparty, and that The Divinegate was irrelevant. The Tribunal held that underwater fouling constituted a defect in the hull capable of engaging the off-hire clause and that Charterers were entitled to a deduction from hire, notwithstanding the lack of qualifying good-weather period under the performance clause. The performance-evidence regime did not prevent recovery where loss of speed was otherwise established.
Read the full judgment here.
Unity Ship Group SA v Euroins Insurance JSC (the “Happy Aras”) [2026] EWHC 7 (Admlty)
The laden “Happy Aras” grounded off Turkey causing damage to ship and cargo. A subsequent GA Adjustment found cargo’s contribution to be some USD1.2m, which Owners sought from the Defendant Average Guarantors. The Court found that the Master made multiple serious errors on the voyage, removed safety checks and kept misleading records, constituting systemic failings and unseaworthiness. Owners failed to show proper research before assigning command to the Master and could not demonstrate the necessary due diligence in compliance with the B/L and applicable Hague Rules. Consequently their claim under the Average Guarantee failed.
London Arbitration 15/25
The dispute arose from delay caused by rejected holds after NOR, with owners asserting an implied obligation on charterers to arrange reinspection, while charterers argued laytime remained suspended until acceptance. The tribunal held that inspection and acceptance lay on charterers’ side of the fence and that an implied term was necessary for commercial coherence, requiring charterers to exercise due diligence to arrange reinspection within a reasonable time. Although immediate reinspection was not required (regardless of practical constraints), charterers were found in breach for failing to take reasonable steps once the vessel was ready, and laytime resumed after a reasonable period had elapsed.
Oceanus Capital SARL v Lloyd’s Insurance Company SA (Re M/V Vyssos) [2025] EWHC 3293 (Comm)
Oceanus provided finance secured by a mortgage over a vessel Vyssos and took mortgagee’s interest insurance (MII). The vessel, trading into Ukrainian waters based on a forged additional war risks cover, struck a mine and was a constructive total loss. Owners’ WRI declined cover for breach of trading warranties. The Court held that the proximate cause of Oceanus’ loss was a mine strike and that the MII Policy responded: the breach of the trading warranties was an insured peril, Oceanus was not privy to it because its conditional consent was induced by fraud, and the loss was fortuitous, so indemnity was payable.
V Ships Limited v Luna Management Corporation & Ors EWHC 3329 (Comm)
London arbitrators issued an Award in a dispute between V-Ships and Luna (managers of “M.T. “Priority”) under a ship management agreement. The Award and a subsequent Injunction, restrained Luna from commencing or continuing any other civil claims arising out of the agreement; nonetheless, Luna and Lambros Stravelakis (adjudged by the Court to be “the directing mind and will of Luna”) persisted in proceedings in Greece. With judgment in the latter imminent, the Court granted V-Ships’ application for a Contempt of Court order against Mr Stravelakis, indicating a real possibility of a custodial sentence being imposed.