“The Supreme Court held that the No Oral Modification (NOM) provision in a contract for occupation of office premises deprived a subsequent alleged oral agreement of any binding force as a contract variation. Parties who orally agree to the terms of a variation of the substance of their contractual relationship do not thereby impliedly agree to dispense with the NOM clause.”

“A defendant sentenced to imprisonment for contempt of Court for flouting a world-wide freezing order, fled the jurisdiction and remains unfound. The claimant bank then pursued the defendant's son-in-law, domiciled in Switzerland, for damages flowing from a conspiratorial agreement to assist in defeating the freezing order. The Supreme Court confirmed that the necessary 'harmful event', namely the making of the conspiratorial agreement, occurred in England (even if its implementation took place elsewhere), thus giving the English Courts jurisdiction, in this case under the Lugano convention.”

“After charterers' repudiation of a time charter of a cruise ship, owners later sold the vessel to a third party for more than US$23m. The Arbitrator found that the sale was made in mitigation of losses as the ship was valued at some US$7m at the time the vessel should have been redelivered. Therefore, he disallowed owners' damages. The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court ruling that owners' benefit was not legally caused by the breach of the charterparty. The breach could have been the occasion but not the legal cause for the sale, which remains a commercial decision made at the owners' own risk and the exercise of owners' proprietary right which they enjoy independent of the charterparty.”

“The rare concurrence of two individually not uncommon events (strong northerly gale and long waves) was an "abnormal occurrence" such that charterers were not in breach of the C/P safe port warranty (even if each event separately may have been characteristic of the port). Further, and in any event, the C/P joint insurance clause excluded rights of recourse between the parties, each of whom had agreed to look to insurers for indemnification rather than to each other in the event of total loss. “

“In an insurance claim under a hull and machinery policy, Owners had lied to insurers in order to strengthen their claim; however, the Court held that since the lie was irrelevant and immaterial to the claim (and therefore not a fraudulent device), insurers could not reject Owners' claim.”

“The Supreme Court dismissed Owners' appeal and confirmed that OWB's contract with Owners was such that Owners could not withhold payment and so Owners remained liable to pay OWB/ING.”