Case Summaries
Skyros Maritime Corporation & Anor v HapagLloyd AG (Re ‘SKYROS’ & ‘AGIOS MINAS’) [2025] EWCA Civ 1529
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.
MS Amlin Marine NV v King Trader Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1387
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 Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2025] EWCA Civ 1227
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.
Orion Shipping and Trading LLC v Great Asia Maritime Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1210
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.
Eronat v CNPC International (Chad) Ltd & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 1054 (01 August 2025)
The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal the High Court’s dismissal of an arbitration appeal brought under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitration, conducted under LCIA Rules, involved an agreement between the parties that any appeal to the English courts must be brought “within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered.” The Claimant had filed the appeal 30 days after receiving the award, but both courts held that time ran from the date the award was made, not communicated, interpreting “rendered” as equivalent to “made” by analogy with the Act, which draws that distinction. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the parties’ agreement on the 30-day period displaced what would otherwise have been a right under the 1996 Act to apply to extend time.
Read the full judgment here.
Nigeria LNG Ltd v Taleveras Petroleum Trading DMCC [2025] EWCA Civ 457 (16.04.25)
A London Arbitration Award ruled that NLNG failed to supply Taleveras with LNG cargoes, causing losses on sub-sales. The ‘dispositive’ section of the Award required NLNG to indemnify Taleveras for amounts awarded in sub-sales arbitrations. However, in an ‘analysis’ section, the Award directed that the indemnity was subject to endorsement by the sub-sales tribunals. When Taleveras’ sub-sale liability to Vitol was ascertained at some USD233m, NLNG sought a Court declaration of non-liability, based on the absence of endorsement. The CA upheld the High Court’s refusal, ruling that the Award’s ‘dispositive’ section contained a comprehensive statement of the relief being granted to Taleveras.