“The owners of a tanker were refused contribution to general average of some USD 2.1 million as the engine breakdown suffered was considered to be the result of an actionable fault in failing to make the vessel seaworthy. The failure of a crankshaft main bearing was caused by a damaged filter failing to remove harmful particles from the lub oil. Deflection readings had earlier indicated that something was wrong, but they were ignored.”

“Dealing with an unexplored corner last week the Commercial Court ruled that the Owners' obligation to proceed with "utmost despatch" or "use all convenient speed" will extend to cases where there is no provision as to ERTL or ETA, but merely a cancelling date. The laycan will still indicate the period of time within which the approach voyage should commence so that the Vessel arrives at the loading port by the cancelling date.”

“Time Charterers, the Venezuelan state-owned PDVSA, ordered the vessel to load their crude oil cargo in Venezuela for delivery in the Bahamas (although subsequently vessel and cargo diverted to Curacao). As a consequence of Charterers' failures to pay hire in full, Owners notified the exercise of their charterparty lien over the cargo, commenced London arbitration and sought an order from the High Court for sale of the cargo pursuant to s.44 (2) (d) of the Arbitration Act. In granting the order, the Court found that there was the necessary nexus between cargo and proceedings (namely the exercise of a contractual lien over the defendants' cargo in order to secure the claim in arbitration). The Court made no finding as to what the position would be had the cargo been owned by a third party. It is also significant that the order was to take effect in a Dutch overseas territory, giving Owners access to EU judgment enforcement.”

“Pursuant to a settlement agreement, H&M underwriters paid sums to its insured's Netherlands-based Bank, following the loss of the Vessel `Atlantik Confidence'. The insurers have now sought to recover those sums on the basis that the Vessel had been deliberately cast away. The Court found that the exclusive (English) jurisdiction clauses in the policy and in the settlement agreement did not bind the Bank. However, in so far as underwriters' claim was based on a tort (namely the insured's misrepresentation on its own and the Bank's behalf as to the cause of the loss) that tort was committed in England, giving the Court jurisdiction over the Bank.”

“A prime diamond trader terminated the agency contract with its long-standing 'London Sights' broker on the grounds that the latter's role had become redundant. The Court found the principal in breach of the fixed-term agreement and awarded the agent compensation being (a) earnings during a reasonable notice period and (b) loss of net future income stream from commissions. Diamonds are not forever, as the learned Judge observed.”

“Beta indicated an inability to provide biofuel to Vitol under a FOB contract; Vitol then simply failed to nominate a vessel in time, later sending a notice of contractual termination. Vitol contended that its failure to nominate was tantamount to acceptance of Beta's renunciatory breach, entitling it to claim damages. Beta argued that its obligation to deliver was conditional upon timely nomination. The Court concluded that Vitol's conduct was not sufficiently clear and unequivocal as to constitute acceptance of a renunciatory breach. However, in the circumstances the obligation to nominate was "stripped of its purpose and otiose" and could not amount to a pre-condition. Therefore, Beta was not relieved of its obligations and Vitol was entitled to damages.”