“Following salvage assistance to a Vessel suffering engine shut-downs near navigation channels, the LOF arbitrator based his award on a danger posed by temporary immobilisation but declined to find a collision risk danger. The appeal arbitrator accepted such a danger, increasing the salvor's remuneration. Owners raised a 'serious irregularity' challenge, saying that this particular danger (collision offshore instead of on channel passage) was neither pleaded nor argued but merely raised in discussion by the appeal arbitrator. The Court dismissed the challenge, refusing to find unfairness (Owners had the opportunity to address the point) or that any irregularity was 'serious' (given that salvage arbitration is informal in nature and the arbitrators are expected to use their own knowledge and experience) or that there had been substantial injustice (as a significantly different outcome was unlikely to have resulted from Owners addressing the new point).”

“The Court allowed an appeal from an arbitration award which had held that shipowners were unable to recover from charterers in respect of liability to those interested in a cargo of direct reduced iron. Clause 49 of the c/p on the NYPE 46 form stated "the Stevedores... to remain under the direction of the Master who will be responsible for proper stowage and seaworthiness and safety of the vessel". The Court held that such a partial transfer of responsibility to the shipowners for some aspects of cargo handling is not sufficient for there to be considered a "similar amendment" for the purposes of Clause 8(b) of the ICA.”

“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.”