Under an amended NYPE T/C for a China-Canada trip, the Vessel failed to follow the route recommended by Charterers’ weather routing company, choosing instead one which in the event was 320 miles longer, on the (later-advanced) grounds that it better avoided a forecast typhoon. The LMAA SCP Arbitrator found that the Master’s contemporaneous justification made no reference to navigational safety (and indeed took the Vessel nearer the typhoon) and the longer route taken was solely to facilitate a crew change. Owners were responsible for the additional time and consumption. The Tribunal however dismissed Charterers’ claim that despite there being no “good weather” days as defined in the c/p, the Vessel nevertheless underperformed if weather and current factors were applied to average speed attained.

Read the full judgment here.

Songa, Owners under a bareboat c/p on the Barecon 2001 form, terminated early (legitimately) whilst the Vessel was at Stockton USA but required redelivery at Trogir, Croatia. Cl.29 specified repossession “at current or next port…or at a place convenient to [Owners]…[who]…shall arrange…to board as soon as reasonably practicable…[when]…Vessel shall be deemed to be repossessed”. Charterers complied but claimed damages. The Tribunal ruled that Trogir was “objectively convenient to Owners” and valid. Both the High Court and the C.A. disagreed, finding that if the Vessel is in port when termination occurs, the sentences of Cl.29 when read together mean that Owners must repossess at that port unless impracticable or impossible.

Read the full judgment here.

Under an NSF 2012 Orion agreed to sell the Lila Lisbon to Great Asia for USD 15 million. The cancelling date was 15 October 2021. Delivery was delayed due to Orion’s negligent failure to arrange crew flights, and a berthing slot was missed. Buyers terminated and claimed USD 1.85m loss of bargain. The Tribunal upheld the claim, but the High Court disagreed, holding Clause 14 didn’t permit such damages absent a repudiatory breach. The Court of Appeal decided that Sellers were required to exercise due diligence to meet the cancelling date. Given Orion’s proven negligence, Buyers were entitled to compensation including loss of bargain.

Read the full judgment here.

AASTAR supplied rice to ADC under a series of 2021/22 contracts providing for GAFTA Arbitration; in July 2023, claiming sums contractually due, AASTAR sent notices of arbitration to generic email addresses for ADC.  In the absence of response from ADC, GAFTA appointed an Arbitrator who issued an Award in February 2024 awarding AASTAR most of its claim. In August 2024 (long after the Arbitration Act’s 28 day period) ADC alleged non-service of the notices and sought to challenge the Award under ss. 67 and 68 (procedural irregularity/breach of arbitration rules) and an extension of time to do so. The Court declined the extension as the contracts had not ruled out email service. Instead, it permitted a limited Application under s72, which contains no time limit and preserves ss. 67 and 68 rights for alleged parties who have taken no part in the Arbitration; the Application to be based upon the report of a single forensic IT expert.

Read the full judgment here.

On expiry of a 3 year bareboat C/P, Owners (Savory) were obliged to transfer title of the Vessel to Charterers (Ceto) if the latter had “paid all… sums due under this Charter and… under … [a] Management Agreement with [a 3rd party].” Despite earlier termination of the Management Agreement, sums remained due under it at the end of the C/P. The Court upheld Savory’s refusal to transfer title, ruling that the right was available only at the precise expiry of the C/P term and even later payment by Ceto of the sums would not revive the transfer obligation.

Read the full judgment here.

Under a sub-T/C for a trip to Persian Gulf, intention Iraq, with grain in bulk, the Vessel waited some 2.5 days off the discharge port, on upstream owners’ instructions, the latter having received (just 5 hours’ steaming away) a notice from Shippers/Sellers that that they had not been paid for the cargo (worth some USD16.8m). Dismissing Charterers’ off-hire claim, the Tribunal found that any shipowner could be expected to pause for thought and obtain advice, especially given the value of the cargo, the lateness of the notice and an intervening weekend.

Read the full judgment here.