“After the outbreak of norovirus on-board, the Claimant cruise line agents sought an indemnity from Charterers' Liability insurers for payments to passengers following curtailment of the voyage. The Court found that the Claimant was not a contracting carrier under the Athens Convention and instead passengers' claims lay against the Tour Operators with whom they had a contractual relationship. The Claimant, therefore, had incurred "no losses costs or expenses as Charterer", money having been refunded to passengers for commercial and reputational reasons only. “

“The Court stated that the Hague-Visby Rules apply not only to contracts of carriage covered by bills of lading but also when waybills are issued instead. The Court also held that Article IV.5(c) of the Hague-Visby Rules does not require enumeration of the cargo inside a container, pallet or similar article of transport "as packed", being sufficient that the number of units or packages is exactly stated in the bill. Here the cargo consisted of unpackaged tuna loins identified as "units" for the purposes of the Rules. “

“Court holds claim is time barred since the cause of action arose more than 6 years from any breach of contract and/or 3 year from knowledge necessary for bringing an action in negligence under s. A4A of the Limitation Act 1980.”

“Sinocore obtained an order from the English Court allowing the enforcement of a foreign, New York Convention arbitral award against the defendant UK company. The defendant challenged the order on the grounds that pursuant to the Arbitration Act, public policy rendered the award unenforceable, as forged bills of lading were involved in the transaction underlying it. The Court dismissed the challenge as the defendant's liability had been ascertained under the lawful sale contract, irrespective of any other tainted transaction (i.e. forged bills).”

“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.”