“The Court held that in defining "port limits", the arrived ship test used in the Johanna Oldendorff (vessel at disposal of the charterer and then geographical position) still serves as the test at common law but that the parties are also free to define this area.”

“After being unable to enforce a London arbitration award against the respondent company, the claimant obtained several Court disclosure orders against the respondent in relation to its assets and ultimately, a Contempt of Court order; due to the deliberate non-compliance by the person controlling the respondent, the Court made an order against him personally, imposing an 18-month prison sentence.”

“Following the sale of a Capesize bulk carrier and the dissolution of the single-purpose selling entity, the claimant buyer purported to commence arbitration against the seller and sought a declaration from the Court that the arbitral tribunal had been validly constituted. Despite acknowledging that the claimant buyer had a "good arguable case" on the substantive claim, the Court declined to recognize that the arbitral tribunal had been validly constituted, since one of the parties was not in existence so as to be capable of being arbitrated against.”

“Shortly before the expiry of the time bar, the Claimants issued but did not serve their Claim Form (which had a validity of 4 months); the Defendants tried to shorten that period by a notice under CPR7.7 calling for service within 14 days. Despite the Claimants narrowly missing the deadline, the Court declined to dismiss the claim as the Claimants had made proper efforts to serve, and the Defendants had suffered no prejudice by the short delay.”

“Where the same agents acted for the shipowners, receivers and other parties in the contractual chain, the Court rejected an argument that the cargo was delivered to the agents on behalf of the shipowners, thus coming outside the terms of the Charterers' LOI; finding instead that the agents must have acted for the party to whom delivery had been requested under the LOI. “

“In a claim for an indemnity under the Inter-Club Agreement, it was held that the true construction of clause 8(d) and, in particular, the term "act" in the phrase "act or neglect", did not require fault. Therefore, Charterers' order not to discharge soya bean meal for over 4 months due to non-payment by receivers was considered an "act" within the ambit of clause 8(d), and Charterers were required to bear 100% of the claim.”