Four Vessels were chartered by a single Shelltime C/P providing for English law and jurisdiction. Disputes arose, and the Claimant Charterers issued proceedings against Middle Volga (Russian registered owners) and North Global. The Court upheld Middle Volga’s challenge to jurisdiction, finding that neither the Recap nor the drawn-up (but unsigned) C/P evidenced a contract with them; the Recap merely referred to the Q88, which in turn identified others as registered owners and North Global as disponent owners.  Further, a C/P declaration that “Owners” had no connection with Russia made it clear that North Global rather than Middle Volga were intended to be the contracting party.

Read the full judgment here.

Having been held liable by a PRC Court for damage to a cargo (suffering from inherent vice) the Respondent Owners sought an indemnity from the Claimant Time Charterers both under the ICA and the implied indemnity arising out of NYPE Clause 8. The Tribunal allowed the latter. Dismissing Charterers’ appeal, the Court confirmed that the implied indemnity was engaged, and that there was no special rule for inherent vice, which was not an ordinary trading risk for which Owners were remunerated by hire.

Read the full judgment here.

A&N Seaways challenged an arbitration award which upheld Owners’ withdrawal of the MV Bharadwaj for non-payment of hire, despite Charterers’ “interim response” alleging the C/P was procured by fraud. The Court dismissed Charterers’ argument that the C/P was a nullity and that no valid arbitration agreement existed, refusing late attempts to plead fraud as out of time and inadequately particularised, and holding the claim had no real prospect of success.

Read the full judgment here.

Under a voyage charter, the Claimant Owners refused Charterers’ orders to load a cargo from shippers, Neftisa, relying on a real risk of exposure under the EPS Sanctions clause. Owners relied on screening software indicating links between Neftisa and a Mr Gutseriev, sanctioned by the EU and UK for ties to Belarus’ Lukashenko regime (albeit that he had transferred ownership and stepped down from the board some months earlier). Owners treated Charterers’ consequent cancellation of the C/P as a repudiatory breach. The Court found in Charterers’ favour, ruling that the refusal was not a reasonable or objective assessment of the risk and the Sanctions clause had been wrongly invoked. 

Read the full judgment here.

Read the full judgment here.

Owners of the “Ida” purportedly chartered her brokers via Nordtrade (D2) to BFT for a St Petersburg-Izmir wood pellet voyage. On arrival, freight was outstanding. Although later settled (via Nordtrade), Owners withheld discharge pending demurrage, prompting BFT to claim the C/P. Owners settled with BFT but claimed against D2 for breach of warranty of authority. D2 was served at its registered principal Turkish office (although they did not, in fact, notice the papers for some 4 months) and, in the absence of acknowledgment of service, had default judgment (in excess of USD1m) entered against them. D2 applied to set this aside. The Court granted the application, holding the delay was not unreasonable and D2 had a real prospect of establishing their co-defendant D1 was the broker and that BFT gave actual authority to them.

“Ben Nevis” and “Kailash” were each bareboat chartered by their respective Owners (C1 and C2) for 6 year terms to D1. After about 2 years, hire ceased to be paid and Cs claimed against D1 and Guarantors D2. The Court dismissed D1’s reliance on a “Repossession Agreement” finding D1 liable for some USD46.4m and USD30m respectively. It also dismissed D2’s reliance on the 6 year term of the Guarantees, holding that it required only that the liability arose in that period, not commencement of suit.