Following delays due to the crew’s lack of COVID-19 PCR certificates, Charterers claimed the vessel was not “in every way fitted for the service” under the charterparty. Owners argued the recap took precedence and the certificates were not required, citing a carve-out for COVID-19 in the BIMCO disease clause. The Commercial Court ruled in Charterers’ favour, holding that PCR compliance was Owners’ responsibility and the deviation and delay were caused by Owners’ failure to comply with known regulations.

Under the amended NYPE 93 T/C trip from Terneuzen to Florida, the Master, having initially agreed and embarked upon Charterers’ recommended, shortest, northern route (via Pentland Firth), turned back in favour of the longer, souther (English Channel) route, in order to avoid Beaufort 9 conditions and waves in excess of 10m. Dismissing Charterers’ damages claim, the Tribunal found that due to legitimate safety concerns, the Owners were not in breach of Charter, and nor did the Master’s initial agreement preclude him from turning back.

In the context of a “freight payable BBB” provision, a London Tribunal decided that there was no obstacle in ordering the Charterers to pay a monetary sum to the Owners, even though the Charterers were (or may have been) sanctioned by the USA.

Time-chartered Owners (‘O’) concluded a voyage charter with ‘C’ to carry petcoke from a Gulf port to India; C sub-chartered to ‘S’ on similar terms for the same voyage. When no cargo had been forthcoming at the load port, O redelivered the Vessel, terminated the voyage charter with C, and sought from C in arbitration unpaid freight, demurrage and, as damages, upstream hire. C applied to join S as a party to the arbitration on the grounds that the sub-voyage was a collateral contract and/or S a ‘necessary and proper party’ to the dispute. The Tribunal ruled that the sub-charter was an independent, not collateral contract and neither the 1996 Act, nor the LMAA Terms conferred powers to join parties or consolidate references.

Time Charterers redelivered 2 Vessels some days late. Some months earlier, Owners had entered MOAs for the sale of both Vessels. Arbitrators determined a preliminary issue on the assumptions that (i) the T/Crates had risen substantially since conclusion of the fixtures and (ii) Ownerswould not have re-let after timeous redeliveries but simply delivered to Buyers. The Tribunal found in these circumstances that Owners were entitled to “substantial damages, compensation or other monetary relief”. On appeal, the Court disagreed; in the normal course damages would compensate for loss of opportunity to take advantage of the market rate, but here Owners lost no such opportunity because of the MOAs, so only nominal damages were appropriate.

Owners claimed some USD4.9m from Charterers in respect of unpaid hire, bunkers and expenses. Charterers (without any specifics) contended that Owners had issued unauthorised B/Ls, had failed (by discharging the carg0) to enforce Charterers’ lien for unpaid freight (having, they suggested, received payment direct from sub-charterers) and sought USD3.6m damages. Responding to Owners’ application for a partial final award, the Tribunal was only willing to award the difference of USD1.3m, on the basis that if Charterers’ claim were made out, Owners would have deprived them of the use of the Vessel by not retaining the cargo on board.