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.

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.

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.

The Supreme Court held that the time bar in Article III Rule 6 of the Hague and Hague Visby Rules applies to claims for misdelivery after discharge and other breaches occurring post-discharge but before delivery. Rejecting arguments limiting the time bar to the “period of responsibility” (loading to discharge), Lord Hamblen confirmed its broader scope, including pre-loading breaches linked to specific goods. This decision resolves a longstanding legal dispute, clarifying the Rules’ application to breaches beyond the traditional “period of responsibility”.

In a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, the BVI Claimant (noted by the Court to be financially challenged) was ordered to provide security for the Defendant’s costs at various stages, 12 days before trial, cleared funds for the last two tranches (totalling almost GBP 1.3m) had still not been paid into Court, nor the trial fee. The High Court allowed a further 6 days for the Claimant to comply, before striking out the claim. The Claimant appealed, citing authority that their uncleared cheque paid into Court within the deadline sufficed. The CA distinguished that case and upheld the High Court ruling of strike out.