The holders of 4 B/Ls claimed against Owners for misdelivery of their logs carried on board “Taikoo Brilliance”. The CA upheld Owners’ argument that the claim was time-barred, as security proceedings against a sister ship did not count as the necessary “suit” under Art.III r.6 of the incorporated Hague-Visby Rules, and the substantive claim was made more than one year after delivery. The CA (overturning the Court below) also agreed that the fact that some logs were carried on deck did not disapply the Rules (and their time bar) under Art.1(c) as the B/Ls did not make it possible to identify which of the (non-homogenous) logs were carried on deck.

Read the full judgement here

The Vyssos, trading in Ukrainian waters, struck a mine and became a CTL. The owners’ war risk insurance did not respond, due to breach of trading warranties. The Court upheld the rulings that the same breach by owners constituted an insured peril under Oceanus’ (mortgagees) MII policy; the loss was fortuitous (Oceanus’ consent having been induced by a forged AWR cover note), and they were able to recover under their MII policy.

Read the full judgement here.

Following Owners’ refusal under a C/P incorporating an ‘EPS’ sanctions clause, to load a cargo of oil at a Russian Black Sea port for the Mediterranean, the High Court held that Owners were in repudiatory breach, having no reasonable grounds to apprehend that Sanctioned individuals retained roles within the proposed Shippers. The CA reversed that ruling, finding that the information supplied by Charterers and obtained independently by Owners did leave room for a reasonable apprehension that Sanctioned individuals remained involved, and justified their refusal.

Read the full judgement here.

Two Vessels under T/Cs, had been sold. with MOA deliveries on set dates after latest T/C redeliveries. On assumed facts that (i) T/C redelivery was respectively 2 and 4 days late and (ii) Owners never intended to trade the Vessels post T/Cs, a Tribunal had nonetheless held that Owners were entitled to damages for the overrun, based on (increased) market rates. The High Court overturned, substituting only nominal damages. The C.A. restored the Tribunal’s Award, ruling that the MoAs were “collateral” and did not affect the usual compensatory basis of damages. Alternatively, “user” damages (here based on Charterers’ continued use of the Vessels) would achieve the same result.

Read the full judgment here.

Time Chartereres, Bintan Mining Corporation, were held by the Tribunal to be responsible for the grounding of the Solomon Trader and liable to Owners for approximately USD $47m. Before the award could be satisfied, Time Charterers were wound up under the Insolvency Act. The Court of Appeal upheld the “pay to be paid” provision in Amlin’s Charterers’ Marine Policy, such that it did not respond to Owners’ claim.

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.