“Borrowers under a Facility Agreement financing the purchase of a vessel challenged the Lender's right to pursue its debt in the English Court— pursuant to a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause — on the basis that the Lender had already made an election in favour of a foreign court. The English Court upheld its jurisdiction finding that there was no clear election. Furthermore, the foreign proceedings — an attempt to enforce security after arrest of the vessel in India — were different in nature from the English ones. In any event, in common with many international financing transactions, the Agreement did not bar parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions.”

“The Court found that the exclusion of "consequential or special losses, damages or expenses" in the Guarantee clause of a shipbuilding contract (on an amended SAJ form) was wide enough to cover financial losses beyond the replacement/repair of the physical damage.”

“Owners' brokers under a COA claimed damages from the traders/ charterers who had slowed and then ceased performance, depriving them of commission. The claim, based on tortious interference with contractual relations, was dismissed by the Court as the two necessary elements of the tort were absent. There was no contractual right to the commission (as opposed to a minimum expectation of it) and no breach by the owners of the brokerage contract.”

“By an ocean towage contract on BIMCO terms, owners of the tug boat claimed demurrage for delays due to extra ballast. The Court found that the owners of the tow breached their obligation under the Towcon to provide the vessel "in light ballast condition" as this means "ensuring physical fitness, primarily stability, for the tow's voyage". However, the claim was rejected because it was not proved that the breach caused the delay under clause 17 of the Towcon.”

“After Defendants were awarded $59.8 million for damages caused by worldwide freezing orders against them, they were now able to recover 50% of their costs, and not 100%, since 1) Defendants did not recover their full damages claimed (some $387 million), 2) large financial investments were made towards issues on which Defendants failed, and 3) Defendants provided untruthful evidence in Court.”

“Carriers argued that their liability in respect of a parcel of some 2000mt fish oil could be restricted pursuant to Article IV Rule 5 of the Hague Rules which provides for limitation per "package or unit". The Court held that the word "unit" refers to a physical item that is not packaged, rather than to a unit of measurement. Therefore, Hague Rules limitation does not apply to bulk cargoes.”