“Insured shipowners' claim under a marine policy of kidnap and ransom was paid by insurers pursuant to a settlement agreement. Insurers then sought damages against their insured's director, domiciled in Greece, for procuring a breach of the settlement agreement (by depriving them of a subrogated claim for cargo's GA contribution and failing to account for such GA contributions as were received). The director was held to have submitted to the English Court's jurisdiction by failing to raise a challenge in time. The Court found that it would have had jurisdiction in any event (under Art. 7(2) of the Recast Brussels Regulation) in relation to the accounting under the settlement agreement, as this was to occur in England; however, (but for the submission) it would not have had jurisdiction over the unrecoverable GA, as that loss was sustained in Oman, where the voyage was abandoned after the release of the vessel by pirates.”

“Seemingly contradictory jurisdiction clauses were reconciled by the Commercial Court which, in a final order, restrained the defendant from pursuing proceedings under an insurance policy before the courts of the State of Washington. The Commercial Court found that the parties had agreed London arbitration and that the U.S. jurisdiction clauses should be read so as to apply only in the context of enforcing an arbitration award (or obtaining jurisdiction in the event that the parties dispensed with arbitration).”

“Pursuant to contracts, Cargill made advance payments (USD61m) to Uttam for the purchase of steel, obliging Uttam either to provide steel to that value or refund the advance. Uttam did neither and Cargill sought and obtained summary judgment. The Court declined to hold that Cargill's contractually separate failure to take up Uttam's other offers of steel constituted a defence (based on the 'prevention principle') with a reasonable prospect of success.”

“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.”