The Buyer terminated a Norwegian Saleform 2012 MOA under clause 14(a) because the Seller was not ready to deliver the vessel by the cancelling date. It was held that the Buyer could recover loss of bargain damages under clause 14(b), provided that the Seller’s lack of readiness was caused by proven negligence. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court dismissed the Sellers’ appeal and confirmed that the reference to the Buyer’s “loss” in clause 14(b) is broad enough to include loss of bargain damages, even where the Seller’s failure to deliver does not amount to a repudiatory breach.

Read the full judgement here.

Nigeria succeeded in setting aside P&ID’s 2 fraudulently-obtained Arbitration Awards against it. In so doing it incurred legal costs said to be GBP44m. P&ID argued that the costs award against it should be made in naira, not sterling, as the latter would result in a windfall to Nigeria, the naira having depreciated substantially in the decade or so since the Arbitration Awards. Rejecting that contention (and upholding the Courts below) the SC ruled that costs should be awarded to Nigeria in sterling, quoting  the discretionary rather than compensatory nature of a costs award and the fact that Nigeria had paid its legal team in sterling.

Shvidler and Dalston Projects each appealed UK sanctions decisions made under the 2019 Russia (Sanctions) Regulations. Shvidler, a UK citizen, with links to Abramovich, challenged his asset freeze. Dalston, an SPV registered owner of the yacht Phi  (beneficially owned by a Russian businessman) challenged her detention in under a Regulation allowing the Secretary of State to direct the movement of a ship owned, controlled, or chartered by a designated person. The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, holding the interferences were proportionate. It confirmed appellate courts must make a fresh proportionality assessment. In the otherwise unanimous Judgment, Lord Leggatt dissented as to Shvidler’s asset freeze, finding it oppressive, “Orwellian” and lacking a rational link to the sanctions’ aims.

Read the full judgment here.

In the early 200s, the Plaintiffs invested some EUR14.5m in new mussel-dredging vessels with the encouragement and assistance of the Irish State, who wished to promote the sector and controlled access to stocks in its waters. The State then opened access to Northern Ireland dredgers, with the result that by 2005, mussel yield dropped, collapsing altogether in 2006. The Court ruled that, as the State had actively encouraged the investment, it had a duty to protect the Plaintiff investors against loss of their investments (although not of profits).

Read the full judgment here.

In relation to time-charterers’ liabilities arising out of the explosion on MSC Flaminia in July 2012, the SC overruled the CA’s decision, and decided that a charterer can limit its liability to the owner under the Amended 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability. It further held that claims consequential to vessel damage may still be limited under any of the sub-paragraphs of Art 2, otehr than Article 2.1(a).

A COA between MUR as owners and RTI provided for monthly shipments of bauxite, and payments in USD. A Force Majeure Clause allowed suspension of performance in case of defined events which “cannot be overcome by reasonable endeavors from the Party affected”. When RTI’s parent became US-sanctioned, MUR relied on the Clause, contending it could not receive payments. RTI challenged, based on its offer to pay in EUR. The SC agreed with the High Court ruling that “reasonable endeavours” could not encompass non-contractual performance (i.e. EUR instead of USD). MUR was entitled to rely on the Clause.