Moeve sold gasoline and gasoil to Mael on FOB Algeciras terms, with payment due 60 days after shipment under confirmed letters of credit (LCs). The cargo was shipped and discharged, but the issuing bank refused payment. Moeve sued for the price under S.49 Sale of Goods Act 1979. The Buyer argued that arranging the LCs discharged its payment obligation and raised a counterclaim for demurrage and delay. The Court rejected those arguments, holding that title had passed, the Buyer had received the cargo, the LCs were not payment, and the counterclaim was time-barred and excluded. The Seller obtained summary judgment, and the Court refused the Buyer’s application for a stay of execution.

Read the full judgment here.

Oceanus provided finance secured by a mortgage over a vessel Vyssos and took mortgagee’s interest insurance (MII). The vessel, trading into Ukrainian waters based on a forged additional war risks cover, struck a mine and was a constructive total loss. Owners’ WRI declined cover for breach of trading warranties. The Court held that the proximate cause of Oceanus’ loss was a mine strike and that the MII Policy responded: the breach of the trading warranties was an insured peril, Oceanus was not privy to it because its conditional consent was induced by fraud, and the loss was fortuitous, so indemnity was payable.

Read the full judgment here.

London arbitrators issued an Award in a dispute between V-Ships and Luna (managers of “M.T. “Priority”)  under a ship management agreement. The Award and a subsequent Injunction, restrained Luna from commencing or continuing any other civil claims arising out of the agreement; nonetheless, Luna and Lambros Stravelakis (adjudged by the Court to be “the directing mind and will of Luna”) persisted in proceedings in Greece. With judgment in the latter imminent, the Court granted V-Ships’ application for a Contempt of Court order against Mr Stravelakis, indicating a real possibility of a custodial sentence being imposed.

Read the full judgment here.

Olam sold a cargo of corn to Holbud, FOB one of 4 Black Sea ports (3 Ukraine, 1 Romania) on GAFTA 49 terms. On the day of the invasion in 2022, Olam opted for Ukraine origin and 2 days later nominated Pivdennyi. Holbud nominated a performing vessel under protest; Olam declared Force Majeure whereas Holbud held Olam in repudiatory breach and claimed damages. Pending a ruling by GAFTA, the parties agreed to keep the contract open for 6 weeks. Both GAFTA and, on appeal, the Court, found Olam’s FM declaration baseless and in repudiatory breach, but the Court overturned GAFTA’s award of substantial damages to Holbud, as the (non-substitutable) vessel had engaged in alternative employment before expiry of the 6 week period.

Read the full judgment here.

Claimant shipowners (Nefelia Shipping SA) issued English proceedings for general average contributions against Brazilian Defendant (Mosaic Fertilizantes do Brazil LTDA and Seguros Sura SA) and attempted service in Brazil via diplomatic channels. Severe administrative delays followed, forcing the Claimants to obtain two extensions of time for service. The Defendants challenged the second extension, but the Court held that the delays stemmed from the diplomatic process rather than any fault of the Claimants, and the extension was upheld.

Read the full judgment here.

AASTAR supplied rice to ADC under a series of 2021/22 contracts providing for GAFTA Arbitration; in July 2023, claiming sums contractually due, AASTAR sent notices of arbitration to generic email addresses for ADC.  In the absence of response from ADC, GAFTA appointed an Arbitrator who issued an Award in February 2024 awarding AASTAR most of its claim. In August 2024 (long after the Arbitration Act’s 28 day period) ADC alleged non-service of the notices and sought to challenge the Award under ss. 67 and 68 (procedural irregularity/breach of arbitration rules) and an extension of time to do so. The Court declined the extension as the contracts had not ruled out email service. Instead, it permitted a limited Application under s72, which contains no time limit and preserves ss. 67 and 68 rights for alleged parties who have taken no part in the Arbitration; the Application to be based upon the report of a single forensic IT expert.

Read the full judgment here.