The CA ruled that a fuel oil sale Recap term making the quality inspection certificate binding on both parties, could not “fairly and sensibly be read together” with an incorporated BP term making the certificate binding “for invoicing purposes”. Buyers were therefore precluded from pursuing their quality claim on the following grounds: i) the BP term effectively deprived the Recap term of all effect, ii) a regime in which a quality certificate is binding is significantly different from one in which it is not, iii) it was unlikely the parties would wish to detract from this central feature of quality determination, and iv) while possible to agree a non-binding analysis, on a commercially reasonable interpretation this was not what the parties had agreed.

“Responding to claims totalling some GBP16.Sm under personal guarantees, the Defendants had counterclaimed for conspiracy to raid and seize their assets, contrary to Russian law. Some 22 months after the trial which spanned 6 months, the High Court allowed the claim and dismissed the counterclaim for lack of proof. The CA held that the Judge's requirement that the Defendants establish "the facts to be incapable of innocent explanation" set the bar too high, rendering the judgment unsafe and that a retrial should take place. The delayed judgment, although inexcusably in excess of the unwritten 3 month rule, did not alone render it unsafe.”

“In upholding the decision of the Admiralty Court, the Court of Appeal found that the passage plan is an "attribute" of a vessel which, if defective, can render it unseaworthy. It did so in the present case, defeating the owners' general average contribution claim. The judgment suggests that navigational oversights prior to or at the commencement of a voyage can lead to owners incurring liabilities if such errors eventually cause loss.”

“As part of a complex corporate transaction, the Claimant was to provide an Assignment to the Bank, by way of security. It emerged some years later that it had omitted to do so therefore it issued 2 deeds in favour of the Bank with the effect of replacing the missing security but also imposing additional, onerous obligations on the Claimant. The High Court found that the additional obligations were the result of a common mistake (both subjectively and objectively) and ordered rectification of the deeds. The Bank appealed arguing that the sole test was an objective one, and moreover one going to the legal rather than mere commercial effect of the agreement. The CA disagreed, ruling that a subjective common mistake as to legal consequences was sufficient — and established — although the objective test was also met. Relevant factors in both were that this was not a new agreement, the commercial absurdity of gratuitously taking on additional obligations and the absence of discussion about such a radical modification to the previous arrangements.”

“In concluding that the Classification clause (9) in a BARECON '89 Charterparty is a condition, the CA (overruling the High Court) found that it is instead an innominate term, for the following reasons of construction and business common sense: it relates merely to classification status; it is not expressed to be a condition nor is it a time clause or a condition precedent leading to significant consequences; further, it was closely bound up with the general obligation to maintain physical condition of the vessel and a trivial breach might well result in disproportionate consequences destructive of a long-term contractual relationship.”

“In respect of its claim for damages for breach of contract, W issued a claim form on 19 June 2017, the day before expiry of the 6 year limitation period, and sent it, just before its validity expired, 4 months later, to P's solicitors, who had no authority to accept service. Accordingly, service was ineffective, the time bar had passed and the claim form expired. The Court of Appeal declined to allow "retrospective validation of service", the required "good reason" not having been established: Neither P nor its solicitors had a duty to advise of their lack of authorisation, they were not playing "technical games" and conversely W had "courted disaster" by leaving issue and service to the last moment.”