Owners made pre-contractual speed/consumption representations, which were included in the t/c warranties, save as for the statement “above…is based on..last 3 voys”. In addition to deducting for over-consumption, Charterers alleged misrepresentation, then fixed the Vessel for a considerable voyage (UK-Malaysia) before purporting to rescind/ terminate the t/c. The CA, upholding the decision below, held there was no misrepresentation; statements of past performance were not representations of future performance, nor had they induced the contract. Further, despite Charterers reserving their rights, ordering the Vessel on that long voyage had affirmed the contract.

The Respondent Receivers of cargo on board the unmanned Stema Barge II sought to limit their liability to RTE, owners of an underwater cable, damaged when the barge dragged anchor during a storm off Dover. The Receivers relied on their personnel’s operation of the barge’s machinery as rendering them “manager or operator”, entitling them to limit under Art.1(2) of the Limitation Convention. Reversing Teare J, the CA held the term “operator” must “entail more than mere operation of machinery” or provision of crew and a higher level of operation involving “management or control” was required for Receivers to avail themselves of the limitation. The appeal was allowed.

The M.T. “Polar” laden with cargo pursuant to a voyage charter, was seized by pirates in the Gulf of Aden until a ransom was paid on behalf of Owners. The C/P, which was incorporated into the B/Ls, contained a “Gulf of Aden” clause making charterers liable for additional war risk premiums (‘awrp’). Resisting Owners’ claim for GA contribution, the defendant Cargo Interests argued that the effect of the “Gulf of Aden” Clause on the B/L was that Owners could look only to their insurers and not Cargo Interests for recovery of the ransom. The CA upheld the High Court, ruling that although the clause was incorporated into the B/Ls for other purposes, it did not make Cargo Interests liable for awrp and could not therefore have the effect of contended for, so as to excuse them from GA contribution.

Owners claimed that Charterers’ failure to discharge within laytime, gave rise not only to demurrage but also a cargo deterioration claim against Owners by Receivers. The CA, reversing Baker J’s decision, held that demurrage was Owners’ sole remedy – it “liquidates the whole of the damages arising from… failing to complete cargo operations within the laytime”. Breach of a separate obligation was required to claim additional damages for delay and as Owners failed to plead it, recovery of such damages was precluded.

. 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.