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.

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.

Read the full judgment here.

Following a collision between KIVELI and AFINA I in the Stenó Elafonísou Strait, the Court determined that the Vessels were meeting on reciprocal or near reciprocal courses, within the meaning of Rule 14 of the Collision Regulations, requiring both Vessels to alter to starboard. KIVELI's improper port turn, along with breaches of Rules 5,7, and 8 (look out, information collecting/use and avoiding action), and a failure of good seamanship under Rule 2, were significant. Although AFINA I acted in accordance with the Rules, her response was deemed not sufficiently prompt. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that KIVELI's faults were substantially greater in both degree and seriousness, warranting an 80/20 apportionment of liability.

Read the full judgment here.

X-Press Mahanada (“X-PM”), inbound to Chattogram collided in the approaches with outgoing Burgan, both under pilotage. Burgan was in the wrong location but claimed this was due to avoiding a military vessel, SS (a non-party). The Court found that Burgan failed to right her position, failed to keep a proper lookout, or to alert SS promptly. X-PM was not blameless but her faults were not causative. SS was held to be significantly at fault and played a key part in the collision - the Court apportioning her 35% to blame. Burgan’s liability viz-a-viz X-PM was therefore 65%.