. The CA dismissed the appeal of a serial contemnor – with an unsatisfied judgment debt of more than USD70m – against a two-year custodial sentence. The appellant claimed that the judge had adopted a starting point in excess of the statutory maximum by commenting that his behaviour "merited longer than 24 months". The CA held that there was no absolute rule requiring credit for the Appellant’s admissions of contempt, and the judge was entitled to find them “meaningless” and “lip service” only. Further, the prohibition on the Appellant from leaving the jurisdiction did not amount to mitigation, but rather compliance with an earlier injunction.

A Shipbuilding contract guarantee in respect of the (USD170m) final instalment for a USD200m drillship, given “absolutely and unconditionally” and “not merely as…surety” provided for payment “upon receipt…of…first written demand….” by the Builder. But in the event of a dispute over Buyer’s liability to pay, submitted to arbitration, the Guarantor was entitled to withhold payment pending the award. The CA, overturning the High Court judgment, ruled that this was a ‘demand’ guarantee (without reference to Buyer’s underlying liability) not merely a ‘see to it’ one and that the proviso operated only where the underlying liability arbitration had been commenced prior to the guarantee demand.

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.”