“Vessel owners Songa, delivered a cargo of edible oil, without production of bills of lading, against (International Group wording) LOIs from its time-charterers, Navig8, requiring delivery to Aavanti or such party as was believed to be or to represent Aavanti. Following delivery to Ruchi supposedly on behalf of Aavanti, Societe Generale claimed to be the unpaid lawful holder of the bills of lading and commenced arbitration misdelivery proceedings against Songa. Pending the outcome, the Commercial Court granted each of Songa and Navig8 immediate and final summary judgment ruling that delivery to Ruchi triggered the respective LOIs, requiring each beneficiary to be indemnified in respect of liability to, or reasonable settlement with Societe Generale.”

“A charter on an amended ExxonMobilVOY2005 form contained additional 'LITASCO' clauses providing (cl. 4) for time waiting for orders to count as laytime or demurrage as well as (c1.2) a documentary time bar, discharging charterers from demurrage claims unless presented and supported within 90 days.
Owners failed properly to support their demurrage claim in time but argued that the waiting time claim fell outside the time bar. The Commercial Court held that a cl. 4 claim is a demurrage claim and subject to the time bar.”

“In a series of public hearings relating to tracing money stolen from a commodity company's bank accounts, the Commercial Court ordered (amongst other things):
(i) the issue of a worldwide freezing order against "persons unknown";, (ii) disclosure orders against banks situated abroad for the purpose of tracing money; and (iii) service of documents by a combination of email and online data room and by Facebook.
It is believed that this is the first time such orders have been made.”

“A P&I insurer who had paid out under the policy following the sinking in 2010 of the insured vessel, later sought to avoid the policy and reclaim the payment. After the payment the insurer had changed name and identity by restructuring but the proceedings were issued (just before the 6 year limit) in the old name. The Court dismissed the defendants' argument that the mistake was legal (and inexcusable) rather than factual and despite the time bar passing and criticism of the solicitor for not investigating the name change, the Court allowed the substitution of the correct party.”

“Following a fire on board a laden tanker (possibly started deliberately by the Chief Engineer), cargo owners Glencore sought recovery from shipowners for their proportion of salvage (and costs) and challenged shipowners' entitlement to GA contribution. The Court ruled on preliminary issues as to barratry and Article IV r2(b) (fire) and (q) (other cause) of the Hague Visby Rules. Barratry required a deliberate and wrongful act prejudicing owners or cargo; the wrongful element must involve something generally recognised as a crime or a deliberate or reckless breach of duty to shipowners; if therefore the C/E was suffering from a clinical mental disorder, the act would not be barratrous. However, Art IV r2(b) can still apply to a deliberately started or barratrous fire, although not r2(q).”

“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.”