“A vessel detained and later confiscated in Venezuela allegedly due to drugs strapped to its hull was not considered a constructive total loss under its war risks cover since a proximate cause of the loss, the detention of the vessel, was subject to the infringement of a customs regulation exclusion clause of the policy.“

“Following ransom negotiations that lasted for 51 days between Owners and pirates, it was held that Owners could not recover crew-related expenses or bunkers as general average for that period since these expenses were not incurred as a true alternative to the pirates' initial ransom demand, and therefore not within the meaning of Rule F of the York Antwerp Rules.”

“An Owner entitled to an indemnity from the Charterer was entitled to an immediate monetary payment, even when the judgment against which the indemnity was sought had an appeal pending.”

“In a shipbuilding contract in which the builder defaulted by failing to construct two container vessels within an agreed time frame, it was held that the buyer was to have access to the same shipyard in order to continue construction of each vessel and that, furthermore, the builder was to provide all necessary assistance.”

“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.”

“In a time charter providing for redelivery on dropping outward sea pilot, it was held that redelivery nevertheless took place in port, once Charterers had given up their use of the vessel (and the Master had signed a redelivery certificate). Charterers' subsequent arrest of the vessel therefore did not give rise to a claim for hire. The High Court declined to give Owners leave to appeal.”