“In connection with a contested constructive total loss claim under a war risks policy on the vessel "Brillante Virtuoso", the defendant underwriters — who allege that the vessel was "scuttled" by her Owner — applied for an order to reveal the hitherto protected identity of a key witness in the action. Despite the order being opposed by City of London Police, the Court granted the application because the true identity was already known to those who could pose a threat to the witness, therefore the anonymity was not necessary to avoid harm to him or his relatives.”

“For the carriage of soya beans pursuant to an NYPE T/C, the Master insisted on a stowage plan involving strapping cargo in a slack hold. The issue was the cost and time of that operation, amounting to some USD410,000. Arbitrators found that the Master's requirement was unfounded, unnecessary and a breach of CI.8 but ruled that Art.IV r.2(a) of incorporated US COGSA excused Owners. The Court dismissed Charterers' appeal against that ruling, agreeing with the Tribunal that what motivated the Master was stability of the Vessel, thus his insistence was management of the Vessel and not the cargo.”

“After the collapse of a dam in Brazil, charterers were unable to supply cargoes from a flooded iron ore mine for shipment under a COA and relied on the force majeure or exception clause to excuse their failure. The Court found that in fact charterers would not have shipped cargoes in any event, so there was no causative effect between the dam burst and the failure and the clause was inapplicable. However, owners were unable to recover substantial damages as the dam burst would have prevented the shipment of any iron ore and the compensatory principle operated to prevent owners being placed in a better position than they would otherwise have been.”

“In a London arbitration involving a bank to whose order the bills of lading had been consigned, shipowners sought demurrage. The Court allowed shipowners' challenge to the Tribunal's ruling that the bank received rights but not liabilities under the bills so that claims against it were not arbitrable. The Court did not rule on the demurrage or the extent of liabilities, referring these issues back to the Tribunal.”

“After the intervention of US sanctions, a USD35.5m shipbuilding loan concluded with IRISL subsidiaries was terminated and called in by the lenders. The sums due — including a 'termination amount' demanded on 9 June 2010 — were repaid by the subsidiaries on 14 December 2010 and irretrievably distributed between lenders by 5 January 2011. On 10 January 2017 the claimant subsidiary started proceedings alleging that the 'termination amount' was never due, having been paid under economic duress, and sought damages for breach of contract or in restitution. The Court held that any breach occurred on 9 June 2010 and any unjust enrichment between 14 December 2010 and 5 January 2011, so that on any view the 6-year Limitation Act period had expired. Nor could it be extended under s.32, economic duress not constituting 'fraud' and there being no deliberate concealment of the distribution.”

“By a 5-year 2013 contract, Seadrill agreed to provide drilling services to Tullow by a semi-submersible tug, in specified sea areas off Ghana. In2014, an UNCLOS tribunal ordered Ghana to stop drilling with the effect that from late 2016 Tullow would not be able to exploit the relevant areas. Tullow ceased to pay hire and terminated the contract relying on a term excusing performance if fulfilment of the contract was delayed or prevented by defined 'force majeure' events. The Court found that although there was a force majeure event as defined (drilling moratorium) it had to be the sole cause of the party's failure to perform. Here however there were two concurrent causes preventing performance and the other (government failure to approve a wider plan), was held to be the effective one.”