Unicredit financed the sale of a cargo of LSFO by BP to Gulf. BP chartered the vessel from Euronav but further to a novation agreement, Gulf became charterer in BP’s place. Euronav thereafter delivered the cargo to Gulf without production of the b/l, which had not by then been endorsed to Unicredit by BP. Being unpaid by Gulf, the Bank claimed against Euronav for breach of the contract of carriage. The CA disagreed with the Court below that the b/l remained a mere receipt following novation. However, it agreed that Euronav’s breach was not causative of the loss, as on the evidence, the Bank would in any event have ordered delivery to Gulf. The Bank’s appeal was dismissed.

Quadra claimed that grain cargoes it purchased, stored in silos, were fraudulently misappropriated by sellers and sought reimbursement under its marine cargo policy. The CA confirmed the Court below, ruling that, despite the goods being unascertained, there was nonetheless an insurable interest, engaging XL's liability to Quadra.

Following a dispute, the Seller of a premium car collection reached agreement with the selling auction house in respect of "all and any claims". The Seller later sued its financing company and the auction house for conspiracy to injure its interests by unlawful means (selling the cars at an undervalue). The CA confirmed the ruling of the Court below that the settlement agreement released the parties and compromised even claims for fraud and dishonesty, despite these neither featuring in the original dispute nor being expressly mentioned in the settlement agreement.

The Claimant solicitors acted for the Defendant clients in fraud/ conspiracy claims brought by Sheik Mohammed. As the Defendants settled with the Sheik on drop-hands terms, depriving the Claimants of any cost recovery, the latter sued their former clients for some £3m, alleging breach of an implied duty of good faith in the retainer. The CA, upholding the Commercial Court, rejected the implication of such a term as it failed to fulfil criteria of business efficacy or obviousness; nor was a solicitor's retainer a 'relational' contract where such a duty might apply.

Following the Commercial Court’s confirmation that Owners could terminate an amended Barecon 2001 and repossess 2 Vessels (the US having designated Charterers’ beneficial owner as a global terrorist – a C/P “Event of Default”), Charterers appealed the right to repossession and the absence of relief from forfeiture. The CA confirmed the Court below: (i) a demand for payment was a C/P option not a pre-condition to repossession, and (ii) although the US sanction regime was itself sufficient to exclude relief from forfeiture, Charterers’ misconduct (pre-litigation dishonest dealings with Owners and then misleading the Court) reinforced this conclusion.

The High Court had found the Britannia LOU, despite its inclusion of a sanctions clause potentially suspending payment, to be in a form “reasonably satisfactory to the other” as required by the agreed ASG 2 form; nevertheless it found the Respondent under no obligation to accept it. The CA disagreed. On proper construction the ASG2 was to operate instead of an arrest and there was no right of arrest once security in in satisfactory form had been provided. An opposite finding, which would have allowed a beneficiary to seek better or alternative security elsewhere, was held contrary to Admiralty practice and the “clear purpose and…language of ASG 2”. The appeal was allowed.