In a dispute as to the construction of a contract, the unsuccessful defendant sought to appeal the arbitration award under s.69.  The claimant contended that the contract was oral, and thus the challenge was as to a matter of fact (to which s.69 is inapplicable). Dismissing the claimant’s argument, the Court found that whilst initially oral, the agreement was later reduced to writing such that s.69 was applicable, and that the Arbitrator had erred on the point of construction, such that the award would be set aside.

Read the full judgement here.

Two Congenbills specified that freight was payable as per a C/P dated 12 June 2024 and contained the standard clause incorporating all terms and conditions including law and arbitration of “the charterparty dated as overleaf”. There was no such C/P but the Court ruled that 2 booking notes of that date (issued by Owners and covering the same amount of cargo as specified in the B/Ls) were incorporated.  As these contained a London Arbitration clause (and despite the 1 year time bar having elapsed) , the Court issued an ASI restraining cargo insurers from continuing their damage claim in the Courts of Brazil.

Read the full judgement here.

A voyage C/P provided that in the event of berth unavailability, NOR could be tendered from any usual waiting place. The Vessel tendered NOR at the pilot station some hours before anchoring at a usual place. The Tribunal held that an otherwise valid but premature NOR (as here) was deemed served on commencement of cargo operations. On appeal, the Court ruled that in the absence of waiver of the invalidity, the “Happy Day” ruling was inapplicable and thus the ship was never an arrived ship, and laytime never commenced.

Read the full judgement here.

Integra sold a quantity of MTBE to Finco, delivery ex-ship ARA (in the event Amsterdam) within a specified 14 day window. By agreement, ex-ship was changed to CIF. Finco alleged repudiatory breaches by Integra on the bases that neither was the nominated ship, “Aramon”, suitable for the Amsterdam facility, nor was the cargo delivered within the agreed window, and sought recovery of their LC payment. The Court ruled that (a) Finco’s stance on suitability of “Aramon” was equivocal such that they could not rely on a repudiatory breach and (b) once changed to CIF, by reason of incorporated BP GTCs, the delivery window was no longer a strict one, such that late arrival did not constitute a repudiatory breach either.

Read the full judgement here.

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.