“The 28 day period for challenging an Arbitration Award was held to run from the date of the Award and not from the date of a Memorandum (requested 12 days, and issued 27 days after the Award) under s57(3)(a) of the Arbitration Act, correcting what the Court termed "classic clerical and typographical errors". The corrections were unconnected with and not material to the grounds of appeal and the Court held that the appeal was out of time and declined to exercise its discretion to grant a retrospective extension.”

“The Court found that an exclusive jurisdiction clause creates "continuing obligations" meaning that claimants were obliged to neither start nor continue proceedings anywhere other than England. Following commencement (in 2008) and continuation of negligence proceedings against them in Germany by their former clients, AMTF brought proceedings in England (in 2007) for damages for breach of the jurisdiction clause. The High Court held that allegations relating to events within 6 years of commencement of the English suit were not bound to fail and dismissed AMTF application for Summary Judgment.”

“This judgment is the first binding precedent on the question whether the berth "always accessible" warranty in a voyage charterparty covers departure from the berth in addition to entry. In this case a vessel was unable to leave berth due to the damage of a nearby bridge and lock, and Owners claimed damages for detention. Contrasting "reachable on arrival", the Commercial Court found that the "always accessible" warranty covers departure, and allowed the appeal against the award of an experienced QC arbitrator.”

“Following repudiation by charterers (later in liquidation), owners pursued their substantial hire and damages claim against JSG in arbitration, the Tribunal, on a preliminary issue, ruling in favour of its own jurisdiction. The Court on a re-hearing under s67, allowed JSG's challenge to the award, finding that the guarantee had been neither approved nor authorised by them. In so finding the Judge acknowledged owners' disappointment, given the Tribunal's intervening substantive award of USD68 million in owners' favour but commented that this could not distort the central factual issue upon which she had ruled.”

“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.”